' f/*  ■  , 


u'.\^> 


j: 

4, 


'^:: 


>y 


5f.6. 


ly- 


3 


LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

Theological    Seminary, 

■  PRINCETON,    N.  J.                                 ' 

Case,        i^^^^—r      P.Jv'sk, 

SheJf, ...., jj^  Q}t  .S.?<^t '  ^ ' ■'  -                  .  ^•'.  .*  -  -  . 

Booh                       ^          No,...'. 

-'^. 

;<>" 


z> 


J/ruCcd^ 


A\ 


C 


laATIONAL  EHOUIRYj  ^c. 


Natural  Religion  Insufficient,  and  Revealed  Necessary, 
to  Man's  Happiness  in  his  Present  State : 

OR,    A 

RATIONAL  INQUIRY 


PRINCIPLES 

OP   THE 

MODERN  DEISTS; 


IS  LARGELY  DISCOVERED  THEIR  UTTER  INSUFFICIENCY 

TO  ANSWER  THE  GREAT  ENDS  OF  RELIGION,  AND  THE 

WEAKNESS  OF  THETR  PLEADINGS  FOR  THE 

SUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURE'S  LIGHT 

TO  ETERNAL  HAPPINESS: 

AND  PAETICriABLY 

Xhe  Writings  of  the  late  learned  Loan  Herbert,  the  great  Patron  of  Deism, 

to  wit,  his  Books  de  Vehitate,  de  Religione  Gentilium,  and  Reliqio, 

Laici  in  so  far  as  they  assert  Nature's  Light  able  to  conduct  us 

to  future  Blessedness,  are  considered,  and  fully  answered. 

TO   WHICH    IS    ADDED, 

AN  ESSAY  ON  THE  TRUE  GROUND  OF  FAITH. 

Bij  the  late  Reverend  Mr.  THOMAS  HALYBURTON, 

Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  Scotland. 

A  scorner  seeketh  wisdom  cuid  Andeth  it  not :  but  knowledge  is  easy  unto  him 
that  undeistantleth.  Prov.  xiv.  6. 

If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself.  John  vii.  17. 

Solis  nosse  Deos  &  coclinumina  vobis, 

Aut  solis  nescircj  datum.  Lucan,  de  Druid. 


ALBANY: 
PRINTED  BY  H.  C.  SOUTHWICK, 

so.  73,    STATE-STREET. 

♦ 

1812. 


PREFACE. 


The  God  of  glory  hath  not  left  himself  without  a 
witness  j  all  his  works  do,  after  their  manner  declare  his 
o-loiy.     Ask  now  the  beastSy  and  they  shall  teach  thee ; 
and  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  they  shall  tell  thee :  Or  speak 
to  the  earthy  and  it  shall  teach  thee  ;  and  the  Jishes  of  the 
sea  shall  declare  unto  thee.     Who  knoweth  not  in  all  these, 
that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  hath  wrought  this  ?  Job  xii.  7, 
8,  9.  Moreover  it  hath  pleased  him  to  instamp  upon  the 
consciences  of  men,  such  deep  impressions  of  his  being 
and  glory,  that  all  the  powers  and  subtilty  of  hell,  shall 
never  be  able  to  eradicate  them  :  Though,  alas !  through 
a  custom  of  sin,  and  especially  against  much  light  and 
conviction,  the  consciences  of  many  are  debauched  in 
these  dregs  of  time,  to  an  obliterating  of  these  impres- 
sions, which  otherwise  would  have  been  strong  and  vi- 
vid*  The  principles  of  moral  equity  carry  such  an  evi- 
dence in  their  nature,  and  are  also  accompanied  with  so 
much  of  binding  force  upon  the  conscience,  that  their 
obligation  on  rational  creatures  hath  a  most  resplendent 
clearness,  and  fills  the  little  world  with  such  a  strength,  * 
and  efficacy  of  truth,  as  far  surpasseth  the  plainest  the- 
oretical principles.     That  one  maxim,  Matth.  vii.  12. 
Luke  vi.  3.  Therefore  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that 
men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  ;  that  one  max- 
im, I  say,  (to  pass  others)  was  matter  of  so  much  won- 
der to  some  of  the  most  polite  Heathens,  that  ttiey  knew 
not  well  how  to  express  then-  sense  of  the  truth  and  glo- 


vi  PREFACE. 

ry  of  it ;  they  thought  it  worthy  to  be  engraven  with 
letters  of  gold,  upon  the  frontispieces  of  their  most 
magnificent  structures ;  an  agreeable  and  speaking  evi- 
dence of  its  having  been  imprinted  in  some  measme  up- 
on their  hearts.  Nevertheless,  all  these,  though  sweet, 
strong,  and  convincing  notices  of  a  Deity,  do  yet  evan- 
ish as  faint  glimmerings,  when  compared*  to  that  stamp 
of  divine  authority,  which  our  great  and  alone  Law- 
giver has  deeply  imprinted  upon  the  scriptures  of  truth, 
Psal.  xix.  7.  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfecty  converting  the 
soul :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the 
simple,  &LC.  I  enter  not  upon  this  large  theme,  which 
great  men  have  treated  to  excellent  purpose ;  I  only 
represent  very  shortly,  that  the  stupendous  account  we 
have  in  these  scriptme,  of  moral  equity  in  its  full  com- 
pass, comprised  even  in  ten  words,  that  wonderful  ac- 
count, I  say,  proclaimeth  its  Author  with  so  much  of 
convincing  evidence,  and  such  strains  of  glory,  as  I  can- 
not possibly  clothe  with  words.  The  greatest  men 
amono-  the  Heathen  nations,  have  given  the  highest  ac- 
counts of  their  accomplishments  by  framing  laws ;  but 
besides  the  passing  weakness  of  their  performances,  when 
viewed  in  a  true  light,  the  choicest  of  them  all  have  a 
great  deal  of  iniquity  inlaid  with  them :  But  all  here 
shineth  with  the  glory  of  a  Deity.  Every  duty  is  plain- 
ly contained  within  these  small  boundaries,  and  all  con- 
cerns thereof  in  heart  and  way,  are  set  down  so  punc- 
tually, and  so  fully  cleared  in  the  exposition  which  the 
Lawgiver  himself  has  given  of  his  own  laws,  that  no- 
thing is  wanting.  Here  also  are  all  the  mysteries  of  ini- 
quity in  the  heart  so  clearly  and  fully  detected,  these 
evils  also  pursued  to  their  most  latent  sources,  and  to 
the  grand  spring  of  them  all,  viz,  the  corruption  of  our 
nature,  and  in  so  very  few  words,  with  so  much  of  shin- 
ing evidence  and  power,  that  no  judicious  and  sober 
person  can  deny  that  the  finger  of  God  is  there,  unless 
he  oiler  the  most  daring  violence  to  his  own  conscience. 
And  what  shall  I  say  of  the  glorious  contrivanceof  sal- 
vation, through  the  Lord  Jesus  our  only  Redeemer? 
Should  I  touch  at  the  ground  work  thereof  in  the  eter- 
nal counsel  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  and  the  several  dis- 


PREFACE.  Tii 

playe  of  it,  until  at  length  the  complete  purchase  was 
made  in  the  fulness  of  time  ;  and  if  I  should  but  glance 
at  the  several  strokes  of  omnipotent  power,  and  rich 
mercy  through  Christ,  by  which  the  purchased  salva- 
tion is  effectually  applied  to  every  elect  person,  I  would 
enter  upon  a  field  from  w  hich  I  could  not  quickly  or 
easily  get  off*.  All  that  I  adventure  to  say  is,  tliat  the 
discoveries  of  a  Deity  in  each  step  thereof,  are  so  relu- 
cent  and  full  of  glory,  that  the  being  of  the  material 
light  under  a  meridian  sun,  without  the  interposition  of 
a  cloud,  may  as  well  be  denied,  as  these  great  truths  can 
be  disowned.  Beyond  all  manner  of  doubt,  they  con- 
tain matter  of  much  higher,  and  more  glorious  evidence, 
upon  the  minds  of  all  those  Avhose  eyes  the  god  of  this 
world  hath  not  blinded,  (2  Cor.  iv.  3,  4.  John  i.  5.  Deut. 
xxix.  4.)  Yet  ah !  mid-day  clearness  is  midnigiit  dark- 
ness to  those  who  have  not  eyes.  But  not  to  insist : 
If  we  add  to  all  these,  the  full  history  of  the  heart  of 
man,  in  the  depths  of  wickedness,  contained  in  that  great 
abyss,  together  with  the  several  eruptions  thereof,  both 
open  and  violent,  as  also  subtile  and  covered,  together 
with  all  the  engines  of  temptations  for  setting  it  to  work, 
and  keeping  it  still  busy  ;  if,  I  say,  the  perfect  account 
of  these  things  which  is  given  in  the  word,  be  seriously 
pondered,  who  can  escape  the  conviction,  that  He,  and 
He  only  who  formed  the  Spirit  within  liim,  could  have 
given  such  a  display.  From  all  this,  I  would  bewail, 
were  it  possible,  with  tears  of  blood,  the  blasphemous 
•wickedness  of  those,  who,  from  the  grossest  darkness 
and  ignorance,  oppose,  malign,  and  deride  such  great 
and  high  things.  But  it  is  enough  ;  wisdorv  is  justijiedhf 
all  her  children^  Matth.  xi,  ]  9.  The  worthy  and  now 
glorified  author  of  this  work,  had  a  plentiful  measme, 
beyond  many,  of  the  surest  and  sweetest  knowledge  of 
these  matters  :  his  soul,  (may  I  so  express  it)  was  cast 
into  the  blessed  mould  of  gospel  truth.  AVho  is  a  teacher 
like  unto  God  !  Sure  an  enlightening  work,  by  his  word 
and  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  iilleth  it  with  evidence  of  a 
more  excellent  nature,  and  attended  with  a  penetrancy 
quite  of  another  kind,  than  any  mathematical  demon- 
stration can  amoujit  to.     In  this  case,  the  soul  (2  Cor. 


vui  PREFACE. 

iii,  3.)  is  an  epistle  of  Jesus  Christ,  wherein  these  great 
truths  are  written  by  himself,  in  characters  which  the 
united  force  and  subtilties  of  hell  shall  be  so  far  from 
deleting,  that  theii'  strongest  efforts  shall  render  the  un- 
pressions  still  deeper,  and  more  vivid.  No  mathematic- 
al demonstration  can  vie  with  this :  forasmuch  as  the  au- 
thority of  the  God  of  truth,  that  conveys  his  own  testi- 
mony into  the  heart  with  a  strong  hand,  has  a  glory  and 
evidence  peculiar  to  itself.  And  though  well  known  to 
those  who  enjoy  it,  yet  of  a  beauty  great  and  mysteri- 
ous, such  as  the  tongues  of  men  and  angels  could  not 
suffice  to  describe.  The  empty  cavils  of  that  execrable 
herd  of  blasphemous  Atheists,  or  Deists,  as  they  would 
be  called,  amount  to  a  very  small  and  contemptible  ac- 
count, seeing  the  most  subtle  of  them,  fall  veiy  far  short 
of  the  objections  which  unclean  spuits  propose,  and  urge 
in  away  of  temptation,  against  persons  exercised  to  godli- 
ness, which  yet  the  Father  of  lights  dispelleth  merciful- 
ly from  time  to  time,  and  maketli  tlicse  dark  shades  to 
evanish,  as  the  Sun  of  righteousness  ariseth  upon  the 
soul  with  a  glory  and  evidence  still  upon  the  ascendant, 
Mai.  iv,  2.  Prov.  iv,  18.  Hos.  vi,  3.  Nevertheless,  the 
learned  and  godly  author  hath  encountered  these  silly 
creatures  at  their  own  weapons,  both  offensively  and  de- 
fensively, and  to  such  excellent  purpose,  as  needeth  not 
my  poor  testimony.  He  hath  searched  into  the  very  bot- 
tom of  what  they  allege.  With  great  and  unwearied 
diligence  did  he  read  their  writings  carefully  from  the 
very  first  springs,  and  hath  represented  fairly  their  emp- 
ty cavils,  in  all  the  shades  of  strength  they  can  be  al- 
leged to  have,  and  has  refuted  them  plainly  and  copiously. 
On  which,  and  the  like  accounts,  I  hope  the  work  wUl 
be,  through  the  divine  blessing,  of  great  use  in  the 
churches  of  Christ. 

JAMES  HOG. 


3^0  the  Public. 


IT  would  be  superfluous  for  the  publisher  to  add  any  thing  to 
ihe  highly  respectable  recommendations  which  are  subjoined,  as  a 
reason  for  offering  a  new  American  edition  of  the  following  work 
to  the  public,  or  as  an  inducement  to  the  pious  and  reflecting 
portion  of  community  to  patronize  the  undertaking.  If,  unhappily, 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  are,  at  this  period,  uncommonly  active 
and  zealous  in  propagating  their  pernicious  doctrines,  it  becomes 
the  peculiar  duty  of  every  one  who  feels  the  importance  of  religion, 
to  encourage  the  circulation  of  a  work  so  well  calculated  as  this  to 
check  the  progress  of  infidelity,  and  to  promote  the  cause  of  truth 
and  virtue. 


"o-j:^* 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 


^E  consider  Professor  H  ALYBURTON's  celebrated  work,  on 
the  Insufficiency  of  Natural  REtiGioN,  and  the  Necessitt 
OP  Revelation,  as  on  the  whole,  the  best  manual  on  the  subject 
of  Which  it  treats,  now  6xtant.  The  author,  not  less  illustrious  for 
his  talents  and  learning,  than  for  his  piety,  has  not  contented  him- 
self, like  most  modern  writers  on  the  Deistical  controversy,  with 
merely  standing  on  the  defensive  ;  but  has  "  carried  the  war,"  as 
one  of  his  eulogists  expresses  it,  "  into  the  camp  of  the  adversa- 
ry ;"  proving,  by  "  unanswerable  arguments,"  as  another  has  pro- 
nounced, "  the  utter  insufficiency  of  the  Deist's  religion  for  the  sal- 
vation of  them,  and  beating  them  fairly  at  their  own  weapons." 
We  rejoice  to  he^r  that  Mr.  South  wick  proposes  to  give  a  new 

2 


X  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

American  edition  of  this  excellent  work.     Were  its  merits  general- 
ly known,  all  recommendation  would  be  mmecessary. 

SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.D. 
JOHN  B.  ROMEYN,  D.  D. 
PHILIP  MILLEDOLER, 
GARDNER  SPRING, 
HENRY  P.  STRONG, 
Pastors  of  the  Preshyterian  Church. 

JOHN  SHUREMAN, 
CHRISTIAN  BOURCKy 
S.  N.  ROWAN, 
JOHN  BRODHEAD, 

Pastors  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 

J.  M.  MASON,  D.  D. 

Provost  of  Columbia  College  and  Pastor  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church. 

ALEX.  McLEOD,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

THOMAS  HAMILTON, 

Pastor  of  the  Associate  Church. 

JOHN  McNIECE, 

Pastor  of  the  Irish  Presbyterian  Church. 

WILLIAM  NETLL, 

Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  City  of  Albany. 

JOHN  M.  BRADFORD, 

Minister  of  the  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch  Church  in  the 
City  of  Albany. 

ELIPHALET  NOTT,  D.  D. 

President  of  Union  College,  Schenectady. 

ALEXANDER  MONTEITH, 

Pastor  of  the  1st  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  city  of  Sche- 
nectady. 

New-York,  May,  1812. 

AccrsTOMED  from  my  earliest  years,  to  hear  the  name  of  Haly- 
BURTON  mentioned  with  the  highest  respect,  and  his  Examination 
OF  THE  Principles  of  the  Deists  of  his  own  time,  greatly  ex- 
tolled, both  by  the  pious  and  by  the  learned  of  his  own  Church,  and 


RECOMMENDATIONS.  xi 

after  repeated  and  frequent  perusals  of  this  judicious  and  profound 
treatisefl  cordially  unite  in  the  character  and  encomiums  given 
above  ;  and  with  becoming  deference,  earnestly  recommend  the 
careful  and  patient  study  of  it  to  all,  but  especially  to  the  youth  of 
our  own  country.  joHN  McDONALD,  .       ^ 

Paslor  of  the  United  Preshyterian  Church  in  the  City  of 
Albany. 

Albany,  May  26, 1812. 


TO  THE  READER, 


READER, 

WHOEVER  thou  art,  the  question  agitated  in  the 
/ensuing  discourse  is  that  wherein  thou  hast  a  considera- 
ble concernment.  If  thou  art  a  Christian,  the  ensuing 
discourse  is  designed  to  justify  thy  refusal  of  that  reli^ 
gion  which  has  now  got  a  great  vogue  amongst  those 
gentlemen,  who  set  up  for  the  only  wits,  and  aim  at 
monopolizing  reason,  as  if  they  alone  were  the  peoplcy  and 
wisdom  was  to  die  with  them.  They  cry  up  their  religion 
as  the  only  reasonable  religion,  and  traduce  all  who  will 
not  join  with  them,  as  credulous  and  unreasonable  men. 
Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  no  man  that  uses  his  reasoi^ 
can  close  with  that  which  they  would  obtrude  on  us  as 
rational  religion :  nor  can  any  man,  w  ithout  being  guilty 
of  the  fondest  credulity,  venture  his  salvation  upon  this 
modern  Paganism,  that  struts  abroad  under  the  modish 
name  of  Deism^  which  I  hope  the  ensuing  discourse  will 
evince ;  wherein  it  is  made  appear,  that  the  light  of  na- 
ture is  utterly  insufficient  to  answer  the  great  ends  of  reli-r 
gion,  and  that  consequently  we  had  the  justest  reason  in 
the  world,  if  there  were  none,  to  wish  for  a  revelation 
from  God,  as  what  is  of  absolute  necessity  to  our  happi- 
ness ;  and  since  there  is  one,  with  the  greatest  tliankful- 
fiess  tQ  embrace  it,  cleave  to  it  and  comply  with  it, 


xiv  TO  THE  READER. 

Reader,  if  thou  hast  thy  religion  yet  to  choose,  which 
I  am  afraid  is  too  common  a  case  in  this  unstable  age, 
then  it  is  high  time  thou  wert  bethinking  thyself  of  reli- 
gion in  earnest. 

To-morrow  thou  wilt  lire,  thou  still  dost  say ; 
To-day's  too  late,  the  wise  liv'd  yesterday. 

And  if  after  too  long  a  delay  thou  mean  to  avoid  an 
unhappy  choice,  reason  advises  thee  to  consider  well, 
that  when  the  choice  is  made,  care  be  taken  to  make  it  so, 
as  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  either  a  second  choice,  or  a 
too  late  repentance  for  choosing  amiss.  There  is  a  set  of 
men,  who  cry  up  at  this  day  natural  religion,  and  especi- 
ally commend  it  to  such  as  have  no  religion.  It  is  such 
as  thou  art  that  they  desire  to  deal  with,  and  among  such 
it  is  that  they  are  most  successful.  But  if  thou  hast  a 
mind  not  to  be  deceived  in  a  matter  of  such  moment,  it 
imports  thee  not  a  little  to  consider  what  may  be  said 
against  that,  which  it  is  likely  may  be  offered  thee,  as  a 
fine,  modish,  reasonable  religion,  meet  for  a  gentleman^ 
a  man  of  wit  and  reason,  I  have  here  offered  to  prove 
this  all  to  be  said  without,  yea  against  reason  and  experi- 
ence.  Well,  first  hear  and  then  judge,  and  after  that 
choose  or  refuse  as  thou  seest  cause. 

As  for  the  management  of  this  useful  inquiry,  it  is 
wholly  suited  to  that  which  at  first  Avas  only  designed, 
viz.  the  satisfaction  of  the  w  liter's  own  mind  about  the 
question  that  is  here  proposed.  I  entered  not  upon  this 
inquiry  with  a  view  to  oppose  any  man,  or  triumph  over 
adversaries,  and  so  did  industriously  wave  those  catches, 
subtleties,  and  other  nicities,  used  frequently  by  writers 
of  controversy.  My  only  design  was  to  find  the  truth, 
and  therefore  I  chose  clearly  to  state  the  question,  which 
I  found  the  Deists  always  avoided,  and  plainly  propose 
my  reasons  for  that  side  of  it  I  took,  after  trial,  to  be  the 
truth.  As  to  the  opposite  opinion,  I  made  it  my  busi- 
ness to  make  a  diligent  inquiry  into  the  strongest  argu- 
ments advanced  for  it,  candidly  to  propose  them  in  their 
utmost  force,  and  closely  to  answer  them;  avoiding,  as 
much  as  might  be,  such  reproaches  as  are  unworthy  of  a 


TO  THE  READER.  xv 

Christian,  or  an  inquirer  after  truth,  though  I  met  with 
ifrequent  provocation,  and  found  sometimes  how  true 
tliat  is,  Difficile  est  non  scribere  satyram  contra  satyram,^ 

It  was  not  amusement  I  aimed  at,  or  to  please  my  own 
fancy,  or  tickle  the  reader's  ears  with  a  gingle  of  words, 
or  divert  and  bias  the  judgment  by  a  flood  of  rhetoiic. 
I  never  designed  to  set  v^  for  an  orator.  My  business 
lies  quite  another  way,  it  is  what  I  lay  no  claim  to,  and 
what  I  think  is  to  be  avoided  in  discourses  of  this  Idiid. 
All  I  aimed  at  as  to  language,  was  to  clothe  my  thougl -ts 
in  plain  and  intelligible  expressions.  Tiie  reader  is  to 
expect  no  more,  and  if  he  miss  this  I  hope  it  will  be  but 
rarely. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected,  that  a  discourse  which  was 
beo-un  in  an  inverted  order,  the  middle  part  being  first 
writ ;  and  that  was  composed  in  the  intervals  of  business 
of  a  very  diiferent  nature,  at  spare  liours,  by  one  of  no 
great  experience,  and  an  utter  stranger  to  writings  of 
this  sort,  shall  be  free  of  blemishes  that  may  olfend 
nicer  palates.  Some  few  repetitions  could  not,  at  least 
without  more  pains  in  transcribing  tlian  I  had  either  lei- 
sure or  inclination  for,  well  be  avoided.  Nor  could  a 
discourse  so  often  intenupted  by  other  business,  and 
upon  so  very  difl'erent  subjects,  be  carried  on  witli  that 
equality  of  style  tliat  were  to  be  wislied,  especially  by 
one  who  was  never  over  much  an  aliecter  of  elegancy 
of  language.  In  a  word,  the  work  is  long,  much  longer 
than  I  designed  ;  and  yet  without  wronging  the  sub- 
ject, at  least  as  I  am  otherwise  situated  and  engaged,  I 
could  not  easily  shorten  it.  If  he  pleases  to  inspect  the 
book,  he  may  possibly  find,  that  I  had  reason  for  insist- 
ing at  the  lengtli  I  have  done.  However,  every  one  has 
not  the  art  of  him,  who  could  enclose  Homer's  Iliads  in 
a  nut's  shell. 

I  am  sensible,  that  what  I  have  discoursed  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  ensuing  treatise,  concerning  the  Occasions 
of  Deism y  will  grate  hard  upon  a  set  of  men,  wlio  have  for 
many  years  bygone  carried  all  before  them,  and  so  have 
taken  it  ill  to  have  any  censures  bestowed  on  them,  though 

*  *'  It  is  difficult  not  to  write  a  satire  against  satire." 


xvi  I'O  THE  READER, 

they  did  severely  animadvert  upon  the  real  or  supposed 
faults  of  others.  As  to  this  I  have  not  much  to  say  by 
way  of  apology.  That  Deism  has  sprung  up  and  grows 
apace  amongst  us,  is  on  all  hands  confessed.  Others  have 
offered  their  conjectures  concerning  the  occasions  of  its 
increase.  Why  I  might  not  offer  my  opinion  also,  I  know 
no  reason.  The  principal  subject  of  the  ensuing  treatise 
suffers  not,  though  I  should  herein  be  mistaken.  In  pro- 
posing my  conjecture  I  did  not  pursue  the  interest  of 
any  party ;  but  have  freely  blamed  all  parties.  If  the 
sticklers  for  the  Arminian  or  Socinian  divinity  are  touch- 
ed, it  was  because  I  thought  fhey  were  to  be  blamed, 
and  therefore  I  have  withstood  them  to  their  face.  As 
to  the  tendency  of  their  principles  I  have  been  sparing, 
because  that  debate  has  been  sufficiently  agitated  in  the 
Low  Countries  betwixt  the  contending  parties.  The 
reader  who  would  be  satisfied  as  to  this,  may  peruse 
those  who  have  directly  managed  this  charge,  and  the 
answers  that  have  been  made,  and  judge  upon  the  whole 
matter  as  he  finds  cause.*  But  whatever  may  be  as  to 
tliis,  the  manner  of  their  management  may  perhaps  be 
found  less  capable  of  a  colourable  defence.  And  it  is 
upon  this  that  I  have  principally  insisted.  To  oppose, 
especially  from  the  pulpit,  with  contempt,  bufibonry, 
banter  and  satire,  principles,  that  sober  persons  of  the 
same  persuasion  do  own  to  have  at  least  a  very  plausi- 
ble like  foundation  in  the  word  of  God,  and  which  have 
been,  for  near  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the  reforma- 
tion, the  constant  doctrine  of  the  fathers,  and  sons  of  the 
church  of  England,  and  have  by  them  been  inserted  in- 
to her  articles,  and  so  become  a  part  of  her  doctrine,t 
is  a  practice  that  I  do'  not  well  imderstand  how  to  ex- 
cuse or  free  fiom  the  imputation  of  profanity,  and 
which  hath  too  manifest  a  tendency  to  Atheism,  to  ad- 
mit of  any  tolerable  defence.  The  scriptures,  and  truths, 
that  have  any  countenance  in  them,  or  opinions  which 
they  seem  really  to  persons  otherwise  solder,  pious  and 
judicious,  not  only  to  teach,  but  to  inculcate  as  of  the 

*  See  Arcana  ArnruVuiiikmi,  by  Videllus,  and  Videlius  Ropsodus,  with  Yi- 
delius's  Rejoinders,  &c. 
t  See  Bishfip  ofSaruni  on  the  Articles,  Prcrace,  piige  7,  8. 


TO  THE  READER.  xvii 

highest  importance,  are  not  a  meet  subject  for  raillery  ; 
nor  is  the  pulpit  a  meet  place  for  it.  This  is  that  for 
which  principally  I  have  blamed  them,  and  this  I  cannot 
retract.  If  they  take  this  ill,  I  ask  them.  Have  not  otiiers 
as  much  reason  to  take  it  ill,  that  the  doctrines  of  tiie 
church  of  England  taught  in  her  articles  and  homilies, 
and  professed  by  her  learned  bishops,  who  composed 
them,  and  by  her  sons  for  so  long  a  tract  of  time,  as 
consonant  to,  founded  in,  and  grounded  on  the  word  of 
God,  should  be  so  petulantly  traduced  by  Avit,  raillery, 
and  declamatory  invectives  from  the  press  and  pulpit;  and 
that  too  by  those  who  have  subscribed  to  these  articles 
and  homilies  ?  This  management  has  been  complained 
of  by  sober  persons  of  all  parties,  churchmen  and  dis- 
senters, contra-remonstrants  and  remonstrants  too,  as  I 
could  make  appear,  if  there  were  occasion  for  it :  And 
why  I  might  not  also  complain,  I  want  yet  to  be  inform- 
ed. None  is  charged  save  the  guilty.  Others  who  are 
innocent  have  no  reason  to  be  angry.  And  perhaps,  they 
who  will  be  offended  at  this,  would  scarce  have  been 
pleased  if  I  had  let  it  alone. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  this  treatise,  I  have  opposed 
the  opinion  that  asserts  the  Heathen  world  to  be  under 
a  government  of  grace.  I  know  it  is  maintained  by  ma- 
ny learned  men  both  at  home  and  abroad,  from  whose 
memory,  if  dead,  or  just  respect,  if  alive,  I  designed  not 
to  detract.  Nor  did  I  design  to  list  them  with  the  Deists, 
whom  I  know  to  have  been  solidly  opposed  by  several 
that  were  of  this  opinion.  But  yet  I  do  tliink  the  opinion 
itself  destitute  of  any  solid  foundation,  with  all  deference 
to  them,  who  think  otherwise,  either  in  scripture,  reason 
or  experience.  And  I  am  further  of  the  mind,  that  the 
learned  abettors  of  it,  had  never  embraced  an  assertion, 
that  exposes  them  to  so  many  perplexing  difficulties,  and 
puts  them  upon  a  necessity  of  using  so  many,  I  had  al- 
most said,  unintelligible  distinctions  for  its  support,  if 
they  had  not  been  driven  to  it  by  some  peculiar  hypo- 
thesis in  divinity  which  they  have  seen  meet  to  embrace. 
If  any  intend  to  prove  what  I  have  denied,  I  wish  it  may 
be  done  by  proper  arguments,  directly  proving  it,  and 
not  by  advancing  an  hypothesis  that  remotely  infers  it. 


xviii  To  THE  READER. 

and  which,  in  itself,  or,  at  least  as  proposed  by  those 
whom  I  have  met  with,  is  so  darkened  by  a  huge  mul- 
titude of  subtile,  mysterious  and  uncouth  distinctions, 
that  I  can  scarce  ever  project  so  much  tune  as  to  under- 
stand them.  However  this  much  I  must  say,  that  so 
cross  does  this  opinion  seem  to  scripture,  reason  and  ex- 
perience, that  it  will  go  a  very  great  way  to  weaken  the 
credit  of  any  hypothesis  on  which  it  inevitably  follows. 
However,  I  hope  this  may  be  said,  and  different  opin- 
ions about  this  point  without  any  breach  of  charity  may 
be  retained.  Diversum  sentire  duos  de  rebus  iisdem  incolumi 
licuit  semper  amicitia.^  I  know  the  abettors  of  this  opin- 
ion are  hearty  friends  in  the  main  to  the  cause  I  here 
maintain. 

The  scheme  I  have  in  the  close  of  that  chapter  offer- 
ed by  way  of  digression,  of  God's  government  of  the 
Heathen  world,  is  not  designed  as  a  full  account  of  that 
matter,  which  as  to  many  of  its  concernments,  is  of  those 
things  that  are  not  revealed,  and  so  belong  not  us ;  much 
less  is  it  designed  to  be  the  ground  of  a  peremptory 
judgment  as  to  the  eternal  state  of  them,  who  are  with- 
out the  church  :  But  only  to  shew,  that  any  thing  we 
certainly  know  as  to  God's  dealings  with  them,  in  the 
common  course  of  his  providence,  may,  upon  other  sup- 
positions and  principles,  beside  that  rejected,  be  account- 
ed for.  The  judicious  and  sober  reader  may  judge  of 
it  as  he  sees  cause.  I  hope  I  have,  in  a  matter  of  such 
difficulty,  avoided  any  unbecoming  curiosity,  or  affect- 
ing to  be  wise  above  what  is  written. 

If  any  blame  me  for  the  multitude  of  quotations,  I  an- 
swer, the  subject  I  undertook  rendered  this  unavoida- 
ble. I  have  used  the  utmost  candor  in  them.  Some- 
times out  of  a  regard  to  brevity  I  have  avoided  the  trans- 
lation of  testimonies  quoted  from  authors  who  writ  in  a 
different  language.  Tlie  learned  will  not  complain  of 
this  :  And  if  any  person  of  tolerable  judgment,  who  is 
not  learned,  will  be  at  pains  to  peruse  the  ensuing  dis- 
course, he  will  find  as  much  said,  without  regarding 

*  "  It  was  always  allowed,  that  two  persons  might  think  differently  of  the 
same  things,  wtthout  breach  of  friendship." 


TO  THE  READER.  xix 

those  quotations,  as  may  satisfy  his  mind  upon  this  sub- 
ject. 

As  to  what  I  have,  in  the  ensuing  papers  ascribed,  to 
Mr.  Gildon  publisher  of  the  Oracles  of  Reason,  I  had 
written  it  before  I  understood  his  recovery  from  Deism. 
But  yet  I  thought  it  not  meet  to  alter  it,  because  there 
are,  no  doubt,  many  others  who  entertain  the  same  no- 
tions he  then  did  maintain,  and  my  opposition  is  to  the 
principles  and  not  the  persons.  As  for  his  recovery,  1 
congratulate  it,  and  wish  it  may  be  such  as  may  secure 
him  from  after-reckoning  for  the  hurt  he  has  done. 

If  any  Deists  shall  see  meet  to  undertake  this  debate, 
I  decline  it  not.  If  they  treat  my  book  as  they  have 
done  those  of  others,  every  way  my  superiors,  and  as 
rats  are  wont  to  do — gnaw  only  the  outside,  advert  to  in- 
cident things  that  are  not  to  the  purpose,  and  single  out 
rather  what  seems  exceptionable  than  what  is  of  moment, 
following  him  who  did  so. 


&,  quse 


Desperat  tractata  iiitescei-e  posse,  relinquit,* 

I  have  somewhat  else  to  do,  than  to  take  any  notice  of 
such  impertinency.  If  any  shall  offer  a  solid  and  ra- 
tional confutation,  wliich  yet  I  am  not  much  afraid  of, 
and  convince  me,  not  by  jest,  bufibonry  and  raillery, 
but  by  solid  arguments,  of  my  being  in  a  mistake, 

Cuncta  recantabo  maledicta,  priora  rependam 
Laudibus,  &  vestrum  nomen  in  astra  feram.f 


•  And  leaves  out  whatever  he  despairs  of  being  able  to  ahlne  in  if  they  were 
touched  on." 

I  "  I  will  recant  all  my  reproaches,  I  will  make  amends  for  my  former 
slanders  by  praises,  and  will  exalt  your  name  to  the  st^rs-" 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

PREFACE, 3 

Recommendations  of  the  work,          .....  9 

Author's  address  to  the  reader,  .  .  .  ,  .13 

Introduction,  •  .  .•••..  25 
[Wherein  it  is  proved  a  matter  of  the  highest  import  and 
necessity  to  make  a  right  choice  of  religion ;  and  wherein 
it  is  further  evinced,  that  no  man,  without  the  most  mani- 
fest violence  to  reason,  can  turn  Heathen,  Mahometan,  or 
acquiesce  in  Atheism  or  Scepticism,  and  that  consequently 
every  man  must  acquiesce  in  the  Scriptures,  or  turn  De- 
ist. Deism  undertaken  to  be  demonstrated  false  and 
■ruining. — The  author's  inducements  to  this  undertaking,] 

CHAP.    I. 

Giving  a  short  account  of  the  rise,  occasions,  and  progress 
of  Deism,  especially  in  England ; — the  opinions  of  the  De- 
ists ; — the  different  sorts  of  Deists,  mortal  and  immortal,         41 

CHAP.     II. 

Mortal  Deists  who,  and  what  judgment  to  be  made  of  them 
and  their  sentiments, 54 

CHAP.    HI. 

Wherein  the  controversy  betwixt  us  and  the  Immortal  De- 
ists is  stated  and  cleared, 57 

CHAP.     IV. 

Wherein  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  is  proved  from 
the  insufficiency  of  its  discoveries  of  a  Deity,         .         .  64 


xxii  INDEX. 


CHAP.     V. 


PAflE. 


Proving  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  from  its  defec- 
tiveness as  to  the  worship  of  God,         ....         79 

C  H  A  P.     VI. 

Proving  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  from  its  defec- 
tiveness as  to  the  discovery  wherein  man's  happiness  lies,       8& 

CHAP.    VII. 

Nature's  light  affords  not  a  sufficient  rule  of  duty. — Its  insuffi- 
ciency hence  inferred, ,         98 

CHAP.    VIII. 

Proving  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  from  its  defects 
as  to  sufficient  motives  for  enforcing  obedience,  .  108 

CHAP.     IX. 

Shewing  the  importance  of  knowing  the  origin  of  sin  to  the 
world,  and  the  defectiveness  of  natm"e's  light  as  to  this,     .     115 

CHAP.    X. 

Proving  nature's  light  unable  to  discover  the  means  of  obtain- 
ing pardon  of  sin,  or  to  shew  that  it  is  attainable,     .         .128 

Sect.  I.  The  importance  of  this  difficulty  stated,  128 

Sect.  II.  Shewing  the  darkness  of  nature's  light  as  to 
pardon, -       .       136 

Sect.  III.  Wherein  it  is  inquired  whether  repentance 
is  sufficient  to  attone  for  sin?  How  far  nature's  light 
enables  to  it  ?  What  assurance  nature's  light  gives  of 
pardon  upon  repentence  ?  ....  143 

Objections  considered, 169 

Digression  concerning  God's  government  of  the  Hea- 
then world,  shewing  that  there  is  nothing  in  it  whence 
any  design  of  God  to  pardon  them  may  be  certainly 
inferred,  195 


INDEX.  sxiii 


CHAP.    XI. 


PAGE. 


Proving  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  to  eradicate  our 
inclinations  to  sin,  or  subdue  its  power,        .        .         .       204 

CHAP.     XII. 

Wherein  the  proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  is 
concluded  from  a  general  view  of  the  experience  of  the 
world, 2in 

CHAP.     XIII. 

Wherein  we  n^ake  a  transition  to  the  Deists'  pleas  for  their 
opinion,  and  take  particular  notice  of  the  Articles  to  which 
they  reduce  their  Catholic  religion  ;  give  some  account 
of  Baron  Herbert,  the  first  inventer  of  this  Catholic  re- 
ligion, his  books,  and  particularly  of  that  which  is  inscrib- 
ed De  Religione  Gentilium^  as  to  the  matter  and  scope 
of  it,  and  the  importance  of  what  is  therein  attempted  to 
the  Deists'  cause, 219 

CHAP.    XIV. 

Wherein  it  is  inquired,  Whether  Herbert  has  proved  that  his 
Five  Articles  did  universally  obtain,         .        .         .  230 

CHAP.    XV. 

Wherein  it  is  made  appear  that  Herbert's  Five  Articles  did 
not  universally  obtain,  .         .        .        -         .         .     253 

CHAP.     XVI. 

Wherein  some  general  considerations  are  laid  down  for  prov- 
ing that  many  of  the  best  things,  which  are  to  be  met  with 
in  the  Heathens,  were  not  the  discoveries  of  nature's  light, 
but  came  from  tradition,         .....  270 

CHAP.     XVII. 

Wherein  we  consider  what  Herbert's  opinion  was  as  to  the 
sufficiency  of  his  Articles,  and  offer  some  reflections,  show- 
ing how  foolish,  absurd  and  ridiculous  the  Deists'  pre- 
tences to  their  sufficiency  are,  ....  276 

CHAP.     XVIII. 

Containing  an  answer  to  some  of  the  Deists'  principal  argu- 
m^jiits  ior  Uie  sufficiency  oi  naiural  religion,       .         .       286 


jouY  INDEX. 

CHAP.    XIX. 


rAG£> 


Wherein  Herbert's  reasons  for  publishing  his  books  in  de- 
fence of  Deism  are  examined  and  found  weak,  .  299 

CHAP.    XX. 

Wherein  the  Queries   offered  by  Herbert  and  Blount,  for 
proving  the  sufficiency  of  their  Five  Articles  are  examined,    308 


ESSAY  OX  FAITH. 

CHAP.     I. 

Containing  some  general  remarks  concerning  knowledge, 
faith,  and  particularly  divine  faith  and  that  both  as  to 
the  faculty  and  actings  thereof,  ....         335 

CHAP.     H. 

Wherein  the  nature  of  that  faith,  which  in  duty  we  are 
obliged  to  give  to  the  word  of  God,  our  obligation  to, 
and  our  ability  for  answering  our  duty,  are  inquired  into,     339 

CHAP.     HI. 

The  ground,  or  the  formal  reason,  whereon  faith  assents 
to  the  scriptures  is  inquired  after  ;  the  Rationalist's 
opinon  about  it,  and  particularly  as  stated  by  Mr.  Locke 
in  his  book  on  Human  Understanding,  is  proposed  and 
considered,        ........      345 


INTRODUCTION, 


XN  this  sceptical  age,  which  questions  almost  every  thing,  it  is 
still  owned  as  certain,  that  all  men  must  die.  If  there  were  any 
place  for  disputing  this,  there  are  not  a  few,  who  would  spare  no 
pains  to  bring  themselves  into  the  disbelief  of  a  truth,  that  gives 
them  so  much  disturbance,  in  the  courses  they  love  and  seem  re- 
solved to  follow  :  But  the  case  is  so  clear,  and  the  evidence  of  this 
principle  so  pregnant,  which  is  every  day  confirmed  by  new  expe- 
riments, that  the  most  resolved  infidel  is  forced,  when  it  comes  in 
his  way,  though  unwilling,  to  give  his  assent,  and  moan  out  an 
Amen.  The  grave  is  the  house  appointed  for  all  the  living.  Some 
arrive  sooner,  some  later ;  but  all  come  there  at  length.  The  ol> 
scurity  of  the  meanest  cannot  hide  him,  nor  the  power  of  the  great- 
est screen  him  from  the  impartial  hand  of  death,  the  executioner 
of  fate,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  use  of  a  word  so  much  abused.  As 
its  coming  is  placed  beyond  doubt,  so  its  aspect  is  hideous  beyond 
the  reach  of  thought,  the  force  of  expression,  or  the  utmost  eflRirts 
of  the  finest  pencil  in  the  most  artful  hand.  It,  in  a  moment,  dash- 
es down  a  fabric,  which  has  more  of  curious  contrivance  tlian  all 
the  celebrated  pieces  put  together,  which  the  most  refined  human 
wits  have  invented,  even  when  carried  to  the  greatest  height,  which 
the  improvements  of  so  many  subsequent  generations,  after  the  ut- 
most application  and  diligence,  could  bring  them  to.  It  puts  a 
stop  to  many  thousand  motions,  which,  though  strangely  diversified, 
did  all  concur,  with  wonderful  exactness,  to  maintain,  and  carry  on 
the  design  and  intendment  of  the  glorious  and  divine  Artificer. 
How  this  divine  and  wonderful  machine  was  first  erected,  set  a  go- 
ing, and  has,  for  so  long  a  track  of  time,  regularly  performed  all  its 
motions,  could  never  yet  be  understood  by  the  most  elevated  un- 
derstandings. Canst  thou  tell  how  the  bones  grow  in  the  womb  of  her 
that  is  with  child,  is  a  challenge  to  all  the  sons  of  science,  to  nnfjid 
the  mystery  ?  Many  have  accepted  it,  but  all  have  been  h'lhd. 
Something  they  could  say  ;  but,  in  spite  of  it  all,  the  thing  that  liiey 

4 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

fouml  a  mystery,  they  left  so  still.  How  can  one  then  look  on  tiie- 
dissolution  of  so  admirable  a  contrivance,  a  machine  so  curious,  and 
so  far  surpassing  human  art,  without  the  deepest  and  most  sensible 
regret.  It  untwists  that  mysterious  tie,  whereby  soul  and  body 
were  so  fast  linked  together  ;  breaks  up  that  intimate  and  close 
correspondence,  that  entire  sympathy  which  was  founded  thereon  ; 
dislodges  an  old  inhabitant ;  and  while  it  lingers,  being  unwilling  to 
remove,  deaih  pulls  that  curious  fabric,  wlieiein  it  dwelt,  down 
about  its  ears,  and  so  forces  it  thence,  to  take  up  its  lodgings,  it  can 
scarce  tell  where.  And  upon  its  removal,  that  curious  fabric,  that 
a  little  before  was  full  of  life,  activity,  vigour,  order,  warmth,  and 
every  thing  else  that  is  pleasant,  is  now  left  a  dead,  inactive,  cold 
hmip,  a  disordeied  mass  of  loathsome  matter,  full  of  stench  and 
corruption.  Now  the  body  is  a  spectacle  so  hideous,  that  they  who 
loved,  and  who  embraced  it  before,  cannot  abide  the  sight  or  smell 
of  it ;  but  shut  it  up  in  a  coffin,  and  not  content  with  that,  away 
they  carry  it  and  lodge  it  amongst  worms,  and  the  vilest  insects  in 
the  bowels  of  the  earth,  to  be  consumed,  devoured,  torn  and  rent 
by  the  most  abominable  vermin  that  lodge  in  the  grave. 

Quantum  mutatus  ah  illo.* 

We  have  all  heard  of  the  afflctions  of  Job.  Two  or  three  mes- 
sengers arrive,  one  after  the  other,  and  still  the  last  is  worst.  Eve« 
ry  one  tells  his  story.  The  first  is  sad ;  but  those  that  follow  aie  still 
more  melancholy.  The  disasters  are  so  terrible^  that  they  fill  the 
\rorld  with  just  astonishment.  And  yet  after  all,  what  is  this  to  death, 
which  alone  is  able  to  furnish  subject,  more  than  enough,  for  some 
thousands  of  such  melancholy  messages!  One  might  bring  the  dying 
man  the  melancholy  tidings,  that  he  is  divested  of  all  his  beneficial, 
pleasant,  and  honorable  employments  :  While  he  is  yet  speaking, 
another  might  be  ready  to  bid  him  denude  himself  of  all  his  pos- 
sessions :  A  third,  to  continue  the  tragedy,  might  assure  him  that 
there  is  a  commission  issued  out  to  an  impartial  hand,  to  tear  him 
from  the  embraces  of  his  dear  relations,  without  regarding  the  hide- 
ous outcries  of  a  loving  wife,  the  meltings  of  tender  infants,  the  in- 
tercessions of  dear  friends  :  While  otliers  continuing  still  the  mourn- 
ful scene,  might  assure  him  that  he  was  no  more  to  relish  the  fra- 
grancy  of  the  spring,  or  taste  the  delights  of  the  sons  of  men,  or 
see  the  pleasant  light  of  the  sun,  or  hear  the  charming  airs  of  mu- 
sic,  or  the  yet  more  useful  converse  of  friends.  And  to  make  the 
matter  sadder  still,  if  it  can  v.  ell  be  so,  the  story  might  be  shut  up 
with  a  rueful  account  of  the  parting  of  soul  and  body,  with  all  the 
horrible  disasters  that  follow  upon  this  parting. 


"  How  greatly  changed  from  what  it  once  was. 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

Thiis  the  case  evidently  stands.  Not  a  tittle  of  all  this  admits  of 
debate.  To  every  man  it  may  be  said,  De  te  fuhula  nanafur.'^ 
What  a  wo»der  is  it,  that  so  grave  and  important  a  subject  is  so 
little  in  Jthe  thoughts  of  men  ?  What  apology  can  be  made  for  the 
folly  of  mankind,  who  are  at  so  much  pains  to  shelter  themselves 
against  lesser  inconveniences,  quite  overlooking  this,  which  is  of  in- 
finitely greater  consequence  ? 

Here  is  the  light-side  of  death,  which  every  body  may  see. — 
What  a  rueful  and  astonishing  prospect  doth  it  give  us?  Where  shall 
we  find  comfort  against  that  dismal  day,  whereon  all  this  shall  be 
verified  in  us  ?  He  is -something  worse  than  a  fool  or  madman,  that 
will  not  look  to  this.  And  he  is  yet  more  mad  that  thinks,  that  ra- 
tional comfort  in  such  a  case  can  be  maintained  upon  dark,  slender 
and  conjectural  grounds. 

It  is  certain,  that  which  must  support,  must  be  something  on  the 
other  side  of  time.  The  one  side  of  death  affords  nothing  but  mat- 
ter of  terror  ;  if  we  are  not  enabled  to  look  forward,  and  get  sucli 
a  sight  of  the  other  as  may  balance  it,  we  may  reasonably  say,  that 
it  had  been  better  for  us  never  to  have  been  born. 

Undoubtedly,  therefore,  no  question  is  so  useful,  so  necessary, 
so  noble,  and  truly  worthy  the  mind  of  man  as  this  :  What  shall 
become  of  me  after  death  ?  What  have  I  to  look  for  on  the  other 
side  of  that  awful  change  ? 

Those  arts  and  sciences  which  exercise  the  industry  and  con- 
sideration of  the  greater  part  of  the  thinking  world,  are  calculated 
for  time,  and  aim  at  the  pleasure  or  advantage  of  a  present  life.  It 
is  religion  alone  that  directly  concerns  itself  in  the  important  ques- 
tion last  mentioned,  and  pretends  to  offer  comforts  against  the 
melancholy  aspect  of  death,  by  securing  us  in  an  up-making  for 
our  losses  on  the  other  side  of  time.  Men,  who  are  not  blind  to  their 
own  interest,  had  need  therefore  to  take  care  of  the  choice  of  their 
religion.  If  they  neglect  it  altogether,  as  many  now  do,  they  for- 
feit all  prospect  of  relief.  If  they  chuse  a  wrong  one,  that  is  not 
able  to  reach  the  end,  they  are  no  less  unhappy.  The  world  may 
call  them  wits,  or  what  else  they  please,  who  either  wholly  neglect 
and  laugh  over  all  inquiries  after  religion,  or  who  superficially  look 
into  matters  of  this  nature,  and  pass  a  hasty  judgment :  But  sober 
reason  will  look  on  them  as  somewhat  below  the  condition  of  the 
beasts  that  perish. 

It  is  somewhat  to  be  regretted,  that  the  bulk  of  mankind  found 
their  principles,  .^s  well  as  practice  and  hopes,  on  no  better  bottom 
than  education,  which  gives  but  too  just  occasion  for  the  smart  re- 
flection of  the  witty,  though  profane  poet  : 

By  education  most  have  been  misled  ; 

So  they  believe,  because  thiy  were  so  bred. 


*  "  It  is  of  vou  that  the  stow  is  told." 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

The  priest  continues  what  the  nurse  began  : 
And  thus  the  child  imposes  on  the  maa.* 

Most  part  seek  no  better  reason  for  their  belief  and  practice  than 
oustom  and  education.  Whatever  these  offer  in  principle,  they 
greedily  swallow  down,  and  venture  all  on  so  weak  a  bottom.  And 
this  sure  is  one  of  the  great  reasons  why  so  many  miscarry  in  this  im- 
portant matter.  It  is  true,  in  this  inquiring  age,  many,  especially  of  the 
better  quality,  scorn  this  way.  But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  greater 
part  of  them,  flying  to  one  extreme,  as  is  common  in  such  cases,  have 
Sghted  on  another  and  a  worse  one,  if  not  to  themselves,  yet  certainly 
of  more  pernicious  consequence  to  the  public.  They  set  up  for  wits 
and  men  of  sense.  They  pretend  to  have  found  out  great  mistakes 
in  the  principles  of  their  education,  the  religion  of  their  country  ; 
and  thence,  without  more  ado,  reject  it  in  bulk,  and  turn  sceptics 
in  religion.  And  yet  after  all  this  noise,  most  of  them  neither  un- 
derstand the  religion  they  reject,  nor  know  they  what  to  substitute 
in  its  room,  which  is  certainly  an  error  of  the  worst  consequence 
imaginable  to  the  public  ;  since  men  once  arrived  at  this  pass,  can 
never  be  depended  on.  Men  may  talk  what  they  please.  A  man 
of  no  religion  is  a  man  not  to  be  bound,  and  therefore  is  absolutely 
unmeet  for  any  share  in  society,  which  cannot  subsist,  if  the  sa* 
cred  ties  of  religion  hold  it  not  together. 

But  in  whatever  course  such  persons,  on  the  one  hand  or  other, 
steer,  the  more  considerate  and  better  part  of  mankind,  in  matters 
of  so  high  importance,  will,  with  the  nicest  care,  try  all,  that  they 
may  hold  fast  what  is  good.  If  a  man  once  understands  the  im- 
portance of  the  case,  he  will  find  reason  to  look  some  deeper,  and 
think  more  seriously  of  this  matter,  than  either  the  unthinking 
generality/,  who  receive  all  in  bulk,  without  trial,  as  it  is  given  them, 
or,  the  forward  ivould-he-mits,  that  oftentimes  are  guilty  of  as  great, 
and  much  more  pernicious  credulity  in  rejecting  aU,  as  the  other  in 
receiving  all. 

But  whereas  there  are  so  many  different  religions  in  the  world, 
and  all  of  them  pretend  to  conduct  us  in  this  important  inquiry  ; 
which  of  them  shall  we  chuse  ?  The  Deists,  to  drive  us  into  their 
religion,  which  consists  only  of  five  articles,  agreed  to,  as  they  pre- 
tend, by  all  the  world,  would  persuade  us,  that  a  choice  is  im- 
possible to  be  made  of  any  particular  religion,  till  we  have  gone 
through,  with  such  a  particular  examination  of  every  pretender,  and 
all  things  that  can  be  said  for  or  against  it,  as  no  man  is  able  to  make. 
Blount  tells  us,  as  Herbert  before  had  done.  That  "  unless  a  man 
"  read  all  authors, speak  with  all  learned  men,  and  know  all  languages, 
"  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  a  clear  solution  of  all  doubts."!  And  so 

*  Dryd.  I/i7ul  and  Panther. 

t  Elounl's  Religio  Laid,  pa^.  91.    Ilei-berl's  Reli^iv  Laid,  pag.  12 


,  INTRODUCTION. 

in  effect,  it  is  pretended  impossible  to  be  satisfied  about  the  truth 
of  any  particular  religion.  If  this  reasoning  did  hold,  I  should  not 
doubt  to  make  it  appear,  that  no  truth  whatever  is  to  be  received ; 
and  in  particular,  that  their  so  much  boasted  catholic  religion^ 
cannot  rationally  be  entertained  by  any  man.  If  we  can  be  satisfied 
upon  rational  grounds  about  no  truth,  till  we  have  heard  and  con- 
sidered all,  that  not  only  has  been  said,  but  may  be  alleged  against 
it ;  what  truth  can  we  believe?  Here  it  is  easy  tb  observe  that  some 
cannot  do  ought,  unless  they  overdo.  The  intendment  of  such  rea- 
soning is  obvious  :  Some  men  would  cast  us  loose  as  to  all  religion, 
that  we  may  be  brought  under  a  necessity  to  take  up  with  any  fan- 
cy they  shall  be  pleased  to  offer  us  ;  a  man  that  is  sinking  will  take 
hold  of  the  most  slender  twig.  The  Papists  have  vigorously  pursued 
this  course  in  opposition  to  the  Protestants,  to  drive  them  into  the 
arms  of  their  infallible  guide.  And  indeed  the  learned  Herbert's 
reasonings  on  this  point,  after  whom  the  modern  Deists  do  but 
copy,  seem  to  be  borrowed  from  the  Romanists,  and  are  urged 
in  a  design  not  unfavorable  to  the  church  of  Rome,  of  which  per- 
haps more  afterwards. 

But  to  wave  this  thin  sophistry  ;  any  one  that  will,  with  a  suita- 
ble application,  engage  in  the  consideration  of  what  religion  he  is  to 
chuse,  will  quickly  find  himself  eased  of  this  unmanageable  task, 
which  the  Deists  would  set  him.  His  inquiry  will  soon  be  brought 
to  a  narrow  compass,  and  the  pretenders,  that  will  require  any  nice 
consideration,  will  be  found  very  few. 

For  a  very  cursory  consideration  of  religion  in  the  heathen 
world,  will  give  any  considerate  mind  ground  enough  to  rest  fully 
assured,  that  the  desired  satisfaction  as  to  future  happiness,  andthe 
means  of  attaining  it,  are  not  thence  to  be  expected.  Here  he  will 
not  find  what  may  have  the  least  appearance  of  satisfying  him.  The 
wisest  of  the  heathens  scarce  ever  pretended  to  satisfy  themselves, 
much  less  others,  upon  these  heads.  All  things  here  are  dark,  vain, 
incoherent,  inconsistent,  wild,  and  plainly  ridiculous  for  most  part ; 
as  will  further  appear  in  our  progress.  Their  religions  were,  general- 
ly speaking,  calculated  for  other  purpose?,  and  looked  not  so  far  as 
eternity. 

Nor  will  it  be  more  difficult  to  get  over  any  stop  that  the  reli- 
gion of  Mahomet  may  lay  in  our  inquirer^ s  way.  Let  a  man  seri- 
ously peruse  the  Alcoran,  and  if  he  has  his  senses  about  him,  he 
cannot  but  there  see  the  most  pregnant  evidences  of  the  grossest, 
most  scandalous  and  impudent  imposture,  that  ever  was  obtruded 
on  the  world.  Here  he  must  expect  no  other  evidence  for  what 
he  has  to  believe,  but  the  bare  assertion  of  one,  who  was  scandal- 
ously impious  to  that  degree,  that  his  own  followers  know  not  how 
to  apologize  for  him.     If  you  inquire  for  any  other  evidence,  jou 


I 


yo  INTRODUCTION. 

are  doomed  by  the  Alcoran  to  everlasting  ruin,  and  his  slaves  are 
ordered  to  destroy  you.*  He  forbids  any  inquiry  into  his  religion, 
or  the  grounds  of  it,  and  therefore  you  must  either  admit  in  bulk 
the  entire  bundle  of  fopperies,  inconsistencies,  and  shocking  ab- 
surdities, that  are  cast  together  in  the  Alcoran,  without  any  trial, 
or  reject  it :  And  in  this  case,  no  wise  man  will  find  it  hard  to  make 
a  choice. 

After  one  has  proceeded  thus  far,  he  may  easily  see,  that  he  is 
now  inevitably  cast  upon  one  of  the  four  conclusions :  Either  1  st. 
He  must  conclude  it  certain  that  all  religion  is  vain,  that  there 
is  nothing  to  be  expected  after  this  life,  and  so  commence  Atheist. 
Or  2dly,  He  must  conclude,  that  certainty  is  not  attainable  in 
these  things,  and  so  turn  Sceptic,  Or  3dly,  He  must  pretend, 
that  every  one's  reason  unassisted  is  able  to  conduct  him  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,  ascertain  him  of  future  happiness,  and  direct  as 
to  the  means  of  attaining  it ;  and  so  set  up  for  natural  religion  and 
turn  Deist.  Or  4thly,  He  must  acquiesce  in  the  revealed  religion 
contained  in  the  scriptures,  and  so  turn  Christian,  or  at  least  Jew. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  courses,  no  man  will  go  into  it,  till  he  has 
abandoned  reason.  An  atheist  is  a  monster  in  nature.  That  there 
is  nothing  to  be  expected  after  this  life,  and  that  man's  soul  dies 
with  his  body,  is  a  desperate  conclusion,  which  ruins  the  foundation 
of  all  human  happiness;  even  in  the  judgment  of  the  Deists  them- 
selves.f  There  are  two  material  exceptions  which  are  sufficient 
to  deter  any  thinking  man  from  closing  with  it. 

The  one  is,  the  hideousness  of  its  aspect.  Annihilation  is  so 
horrible  to  human  nature,  and  has  so  frightful  a  visage  to  men  who 
have  a  desire  of  perpetuity  inlaid  in  their  very  frame,  that  none 
can  look  at  it  seriously  without  the  utmost  dread.  It  is  true,  guil- 
ty Atheists  would  fain  take  sanctuary  here  ;  yet  were  they  brought 
to  think  seriously  of  the  case,  they  would  not  find  that  relief  in  it 
which  they  promise.  I  have  been  credibly  informed  that  a  gentle- 
man of  no  contemptible  parts,  who  had  lived  as  if,  indeed,  he  were 
to  fear  or  hope  nothing  after  time,  being  in  prison,  and  fearing  death, 
(though  he  escaped  it  and  yet  lives)  fell  a  thinking  seriously,  when 
alone,  of  annihilation :  And  the  fears  of  it  made  so  deep  and  horri- 
ble impressions  on  his  mind,  that  he  professed  to  a  gentleman,  who 
made  him  a  visit  in  prison,  and  found  him  in  a  grievous  damp,  that 
the  thoughts  of  annihilation  were  so  dreadful  to  him,  that  he  had  ra- 
ther think  of  suffering  a  thousand  years  in  hell.  Guilty  sinners,  to 
ease  their  consciences,  and  screen  them  from  the  disquieting  appre- 
hensions of  an  after- reckoning,  retreat  to  this,  as  a  refuge  ;  but 
they  think  no  more  about  it,  save  only  this  and  that  in  a  cursory 


*  Alcoran,  chap.  4. 

•j-  Letter  to  a  Deist,  pag-e  135. 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

way,  that  it  will  free  them  from  the  punishment  they  dread  and  de- 
aerve.  But  if  they  would  sedately  view  it,  and  take  under  their 
consideration  all  the  horror  of  the  case,  their  natures  would  recoil 
and  shrink :  It  would  create  uneasiness  instead  of  quiet,  and  increase 
the  strait  rather  than  relieve  them  from  it. 

Besides,  which  is  the  other  exception  against  it,  were  there  never 
so  much  comfort  in  it,  as  there  is  none,  i/et  it  is  impossible  to  prove 
that  there  is  nothing  after  this  life.  There  is  nothing  that  is  tolera- 
ble can  be  said  for  it.  None  shall  ever  evince  the  certainty  of  the 
foul's  dying  with  the  body,  till  he  has  overthrown  the  being  of  a 
God,  which  can  never  be  done  so  long  as  there  is  any  thing  certain 
among  men.  Further,  as  there  is  little  or  nothing  to  be  said  for  it, 
so  there  is  much  to  be  said  against  it.  Reason  affords  violent  pre- 
sumptions, at  least,  for  a  future  state.  And  all  the  arguments  which 
conclude  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  join  their  united  force  to  sup- 
port the  certainty  of  a  state  after  this  life.  Till  these  are  removed 
out  of  the  way,  there  is  no  access  for  any  to  enjoy  the  imaginary 
comfort  of  this  supposition.  But  who  will  undertake  solidly  to  over- 
turn so  many  arguments,  which  have  stood  the  test  of  ages  ?  They 
who  are  likely  to  be  most  forward,  and  favor  this  cause  most,  dare 
scarce  allow  these  reasonings  a  fair  hearing,  which  plead  for  a  fu- 
ture state,  for  fear  of  rivetting  the  impression  of  the  truth  deeper 
on  their  minds,  which  they  desire  to  shake  themselves  loose  of.  And 
how  then  will  they  overthrow  them?  In  fine,  he  is  a  madman,  who  will 
admit  a  conclusion,  whereof  he  can  never  be  certain,  and  wherein, 
were  it  sure,  he  can  have  no  satisfaction.  The  first  forbids  the  judg- 
ment, the  last  dissuades  the  will  and  affections  from  resting  in  it. 

As  to  the  second  conclusion  above  mentioned,  that  sets  up  for 
scepticism  in  matters  of  religion,  and  bids  us  live  at  peradventures 
as  to  what  is  to  be  feared  or  hoped  after  time :  it  is  a  course  that 
nothing  can  justify  save  absolute  necessity.  It  lies  open  to  the 
worst  of  inconveniences.  Nothing  can  be  imagined  more  melan- 
choly than  its  consequences,  and  the  pretences  for  it  are  vain  and 
frivolous. 

If  it  be  really  thus,  that  man  can  arrive  at  no  certainty  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  about  his  state  after  time,  how  deplorable  is  man's 
condition  ?  His  case  is  comfortless  beyond  what  can  be  well  con- 
ceived. Nor  can  his  enjoyments  afford  him  any  solid  satisfaction, 
while  ghastly  death  looks  him  in  the  face,  and  the  sword  hangs  over 
his  head,  suspended  by  a  hair.  Will  not  the  prospect  of  jiis  rueful 
change  (of  whose  dismal  attendants  we  have  given  some  account)  em- 
bitter his  sweetest  enjoyments  ?  And  will  not  the  horror  of  the  case 
be  much  increased  by  resolving  upon  a  perplexing  uncertainty  as 
to  what  may  come  hereafter?  In  how  dismal  aplight  is  the  poor  man, 
who  on  the  one  hand  is  certain  of  the  speedy  arrival  of  death  with 
all  his  frightful  attendants ;  and  on  the  other,  is  told  that  he  must 


35  INTRODUCTION. 

rove  in  uncertainty,  till  the  event  clear  him,  whether  he  shall  be 
entirely  annihilated,  and  so  plunge  into  that  horrible  gulf  wherfe 
Atheists  seek  a  sanctuary !  or  if  he  shall  not  be  hurried  headlong  into 
these  endless  torments,  which  the  consciences  of  guilty  sinners, 
when  awakened,  presage  ;  or,  if  he  shall  soar  aloft  into  regions  of 
endless  bliss,  which  sinful  mortals  have  but  little  reason  to  expect ; 
or,  finally,  whether  he  is  not  to  launch  out  into  some  state  reduci- 
ble to  none  of  these.  If  here  it  behoves  us  to  fix,  one  would  not 
know  how  to  evite  two  conclusions  that  are  horrible  to  think  of : 
"  That  our  reason,  whereby  we  are  capable  of  foreseeing,  and  are 
*'  affected  with  things  at  a  distance,  is  a  heavy  curse ;  and  that  the 
"  profligate  Atheist,  who  endeavors  to  mend  this  fault,  in  his  consti- 
"  tution,  by  a  continual  debauch,  that  never  allows  him  to  think 
"  any  more  of  what  is  certainly  to  come,  than  if  he  were  a  brute  in- 
*'  capable  of  forethought,  is  the  wisest  man." 

Beside,  as  was  above  insinuated,  the  pretences  for  this  course  are 
vain.  It  is  true,  most  of  those  who  set  up  for  wits  in  this  unhappy 
•age,  are  mere  sceptics  in  religion,  who  admit  nothing  as  certain, 
but  boldly  question  every  thing,  and  live  at  peradventures.  Yet 
we  are  not  obliged  to  think  that  this  scepticism  is  the  result  of  se- 
rious inquiry,  and  the  want  of  certainty  thereon ;  but  those  gentle- 
men's way  of  living  is  inconsistent  with  serious  religion ;  they  are 
therefore  desirous  to  have  such  a  set  of  principles  as  if  they  favor 
them  not  in  the  practices  they  have  a  mind  to  follow,  yet  shall  not  in- 
commode them  sorely.  This  principle  gives  not  absolute  security  of 
impunity ;  but  it  seems,  and  but  seems,  to  justify  them  in  their  present 
neglect  of  religion,  and  gives  them  a  majj  be  for  an  escape  from 
feared  and  deserved  punishments ;  and  favors  that  laziness  that  can- 
not search  for  truth,  where  it  lies  not  open  to  the  eye,  even  of 
those  who  care  not  to  see  it.  Their  practice  and  course  of  life 
shew  them  so  impatient  of  restialnts,  that  they  love  liberty,  or  ra- 
ther licentiousness ;  and  are  not  willing  to  come  under  any  bonds. 
They  greedily  grasp  at  any  difficulty  that  seems  to  make 
ever  so  little  against  religion ; — an  evidence  that  they  bear  it  no 
real  good  will.  They  neither  converse  much  with  books,  nor  men, 
that  might  afford  them  satisfaction,  in  reference  to  their  real  scruples, 
which  is  proof  enough  that  they  design  not  to  be  satisfied.  They  are 
light  and  jocular  in  their  converse  about  the  most  serious  matters ; 
an  evidence  that  their  desire  is  not  to  be  informed.  It  is  a  good 
observation  of  the  wise  man,  [Prov.  xlv,  6.]  A  scorner  seeketh  wis- 
dom and  findeth  it  not,  but  knowledge  is  easy  to  him  that  under- 
standeth.  This  is  the  real  mj'stery  of  the  matter  with  those  gentle- 
men, whatever  they  may  pretend. 

I  know  they  want  not  pretences,  taking  enough  with  the  unthink- 
ing, whereby  they  would  justify  themselves  in  their  infidelity.  The 
principal  one  is,  that  they  find  it  easy  to  load  religion  with  abund- 


INTRODUCTION.  83 

ance  of  difficulties,  not  easily,  if  at  all,  capable  of  solution.  But  af- 
ter all,  these  gentlemen  use  those  objections  as  the  sceptics  did  of  old, 
not  so  much  to  maintain  any  settled  principle,  no  not  their  beloved 
one,  whereof  now  we  speak;  as  to  create  them  work,  and  make 
sport  with  those  who  would  seriously  confute  them,  and  to  ward  off 
blows  from  themselves,  who  have  neither  principles  nor  practice  ca- 
pable of  a  rational  defence. 

It  is  like  indeed,  that  sometimes  they  may  meet  with  such,  who 
although  they  own  religion,  are  yet  incapable  of  defending  it  against 
such  objections.  But  this  is  no  wonder,  since  there  are  weak  men 
of  all  persuasions.  And  their  weakness  is  not,  or  ought,  not  to  be  any 
real  prejudice  to  the  truth  they  maintain.  Besides,  every  one  may 
know  that  ignorance  of  any  subject  is  fertile  of  doubts,  and  will  start 
abundance  of  difficulties  ;  whereas  it  requires  a  more  full  and  exact 
acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  things  to  solve  them;  and  this  falls 
not  to  every  one's  share. 

Further,  if  th  s  be  allowed  a  reasonable  exception  against  reli- 
gion, that  it  is  liable  to  exceptions  not  easy  to  be  solved,  it  will  hold 
good  as  well  against  all  other  sorts  of  knowledge,  as  against  religion  ; 
yea,  alid  I  may  add,  it  concludes  much  stronger;  for  the  farther 
any  subject  is  above  our  reach,  the  less  reason  we  have  to  expect, 
that  we  shall  be  capable  of  solving  every  difficulty  that  may  be 
fltarted  against  it.  There  is  no  part  of  our  knowledge,  that  is  not  in- 
cumbered with  difficulties,  as  hard  to  be  satisfyingly  solved,  as  those 
commonly  urged  against  religion.  If  this  be  a  sjifficient  reason  to 
question  religion,  that  there  are  arguments  which  may  be  urged 
against  it,  not  capable  of  a  clear,  or,  at  least,  an  easy  solution;  I  doubt 
not,  upon  the  same  ground,  to  bring  the  gentlemen  who  maintain 
this,  if  they  will  follow  out  their  principle,  to  reject  the  most  evi- 
dent truths,  that  we  receive  upon  the  credit  of  moral,  metaphysical, 
and  mathematical  demonstrations ;  yea,  or  even  upon  the  testimony 
of  our  senses.  For  I  know  few  of  these  truths  that  we  receive  up- 
on any  of  those  grounds,  against  which  a  person  of  a  very  ordinary 
genius  m:iy  not  start  difficulties,  which  perhaps  no  man  alive  can 
^ive  a  fair  account  of;  and  yet  no  man  is  so  foolish  as  to  call  in 
-question  those  truths,  because  he  cannot  solve  the  difficulties  which 
every  idle  head  may  start  upon  those  subjects.  I  may  give  innu- 
merable instances  of  the  difficulties  wherewith  other  parts  of  hu- 
man knowledge  are  embarrassed :  I  shall  only  hint  at  a  few. 

That^  matter  is  divisible  into,  or  at  least  consists  of  indivisible 
particles,  is  with  some  a  truth  next  to  self-evident.  That  the  quite 
contrary  is  tine,  and  matter  is  divisible  in  infinitmn,  appears  no 
less  certain  to  many  otliers.*     But  if  either  of  them  should  pretend 

*  Locke  on  Jlmnan  Undenstatiding;  edit.  5,  page  207.—"  I  would  fain  have  it 
instnnredinournotioiiof  spivit  of  any  thing  more  perplexed,  or  nearer  aeon- 


34  INTRODUCTION. 

theiusclves  ciipiible  of  solving  the  difficulties,  that  He  against  their 
respective  opinions,  it  were  sufficient  to  make  all  men  .of  sense  and 
learning  doubt  of  their  capacity  and  judgment :  For  the  difficulties 
on  both  hands  are  such,  that  no  ingenuous  man  that  understands 
Ihem,  will  pretend  himself  capable  of  giving  a  fair  solution  of  those, 
which  press  that  side  of  the  question  he  is  incHued  to. 

Again,  whether  we  will,  or  will  not,  we  must  believe  one  side, 
and  but  one  side,  of  the  question  is  true ;  that  either  matter  is  di- 
visible in  infinitum,  or  not;  that  it  consists  of  indivisibles,  or  not; 
these  are  contradictions.  And  it  is  one  of  the  most  evident  propo- 
sitions that  the  mind  of  man  is  acquainted  with,  tliat  contradictions 
cannot  be  true,  or  that  both  sides  of  a  contradiction  cannot  bold. 
And  yet  agaijist  this  truth,  ^vhereon  much  of  our  most  certain  know- 
ledge depends,  insoluble  difficulties  may  be  urged :  For  it  may  be 
pretended,  that  here  both  sides  of  the  contradiction  are  true,  and 
this  pretence  may  be  enforced  by  the  arguments  abovementioned, 
which  confirm  the  two  <^posite  opinions,  which  no  mortal  can  an- 
swer.    Shall  we  therefore  believe  that  contradictions  uiay  be  true? 

That  motion  is  possible  I  am  not  like  to  doubt,  nor  can  I,  while  I 
know  that  I  can  rise  and  walk;  nor  is  he  like  to  doubt  of  it,  who 
sees  me  walk.  And  yet  I  doubt  not  the  most  ingenious  of  our  athe- 
istical wits  would  find  himself  sufficiently  straitened,  were  the  argu- 
ments of  Zefw  Ehah'S  against  motion  well  urged,  by  a  subtle  dis-* 
putant.  I  shall  offer  one  argument  against  motion,  which  I  am  fully 
•satisfied  will  puzzle  the  most  subtle  adversai'ies  of  religion  to  solve 
satisfyingly.  Tliere  are  stronger  arguments  proving  that  matter 
is  divisible  in  ii?^??iiiim  than  any  mortal  can  solve  or  answer,  though 
I  perhaps  believe  it  untrue.  And  it  is  as  certain  as  the  sun  is  in 
Ihe  firmameut,  tliat  if  matter  is  divisible  in  infinitum^  it  consists 
of  an  infinite  number  of  parts — (what  some  talk  of  indefinite  is  a 
shelter  of  ignorance,  and  if  it  is  used  any  other  way  than  as  a  shield 
to  ward  off  difficulties  for  a  while  in  a  public  dispute,  the  users  can- 
not be  excused  either  of  gioss  ignorance,  rooted  prejudice,  or  dis- 
ingenuity.)  This  being  laid  down  as  proven,  and  proven  it  may  be 
by  arguments,  which  none  living  can  satisfy,  that  matter  Is  divisi- 
ble in  infinitum,  and  that  consequently  it  contains  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  parts.  Nor  is  it  less  certain,  that  according  to  these  conclu- 
sions laid  down,  if  one  body  move  upon  the  surface  of  another,  as 
for  instance,  an  inch  in  a  minute's  time,  it  must  pass  by  au  infinite 
number  of  parts;  and  it  is  undeniable,  that  it  cannot  pass  one  of 


tradiction,  than  the  very  notion  of  body  includes  in  It ;  the  divisibility  /// 
infinitum  of  any  finite  extension,  involving  us,  whether  we  gi-ant  or  deny  it, 
in  consequences  impossible  to  be  explicated,  or  made  in  our  apprehensions 
consistent;  consequences  that  carx'y  greater  difficulty,  and  moi-e  apparent 
absurdity  than  any  thing  that  can  follow  from  the  notion  of  an  immaterial 
£'.ibet;uicc." 


INTRODUCTION.  2j 

that  Iiifiiiite  number  of  parts  without  some  portion  of  time.  Now 
if  so,  what  a  vast  portion  of  time  will  it  require  to  make  that  little 
journey,  which  we  know  can  be  performed  in  a  moment !  Will  it 
not  evidently  require  an  eternity !  What  difficulty  can  any  urge, 
more  difficult  to  be  solved,  against  religion  than  this?  And  yet  for 
all  this  he  were  a  fool  who  would  doubt  of  motion. 

As  to  mathematical  certainty  though  many  boasts  are  made  of 
the  firmness  of  its  demonstrations ;  yet  these  may,  upon  this  ground, 
be  called  all  in  question.  And  I  nothing  doubt,  that  if  men's  inter- 
ests, real  or  pretended,  lay  as  cross  to  them,  as  they  are  supposed 
to  do  to  the  truths  of  a  religion,  many  more  exceptions  might  be  made 
against  them,  than  are  against  those,  and  upon  full  as  good,  if  not 
better  reason.  In  justification  of  this  assertion,  I  might  proceed 
to  demonstrate  how  trifling  even  the  definitions  of  geometry,  the 
firmest  of  all  the  mathematical  sciences,  are.  Its  difinitions  might 
be  alleged,  upon  no  inconsiderable  grounds,  trlffing,  nonsensical  and  ri- 
diculous. Its  demands  or  its  postulates,  declared  plainly  impracticable. 
Its  axioms  or  self-evident  propositions — controvertible,  and  by  them- 
selves they  are  controverted.  Any  one  who  would  see  this  made 
<2;ood  in  particular  instances,  may  consult  (besides  others)  the  learnt 
ed  Huetms^s  Demonstratio  EvangelicUj  where,  in  the  Illustration 
of  his  definitions,  axioms  and  postulates,  he  compares  them  with 
those  of  geometry,  and  prefers  them  to  these,  and  shows  they  are 
incumbered  with  fewer  difficulties  than  the  otlier,  though  without 
derogating  from  the  just  worth  and  evidence  of  mathematical  scien- 
ces. Besides  what  he  has  observed,  I  may  add  this  one  thing 
more,  that  those  sciences  deserve  not  any  great  reg-ard,  save  as 
they  are  applied  to  the  use  of  life,  and  in  a  subserviency  to  man's 
advantage.  And  when  thus  they  are  applied  to  practice,  the  diffi- 
culty is  considerably  increased,  and  they  maybe  easily  loaded  with 
innumerable  and  insoluble  inconveniences.  For  then,  their  defini- 
tions cease  to  be  the  definition  of  names,  and  are  to  be  taken  as  the 
definitions  of  things  that  are  actually  in  being.  Their  demands 
must  not  be  practicable,  but  put  in  practice.  And  who  sees  not 
how  many  inextricable  difficulties  the  practiser  will  be  cast  upon  I 
The  demonstration  may  proceed  biavely  so  long  as  they  hold  in 
the  theory,  and  mean  by  Punctumy  id  cii/jus  pars  nulla  est  ;*  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  lines  and  surfaces,  and  all  their  figures ; 
without  obliging  us  to  believe  that  really  there  are  any  such  things. 
But  when  we  come  to  the  practice,  they  must  go  further,  and  take 
It  for  granted,  that  there  are  such  points,  lines,  surfaces  and  figures. 
This  turns  what  was  before  only  an  explication  of  a  name,  into  the 
definition  of  a  thing.  And  therefore  I  am  now  left  at  liberty  to 
dispute,  Avhcther  there  is  any  such  thing ;  or,  whether  indeed  it  is' 

'  "  A  point,  is,  llial.  which  has  no  parts." 


3B  INTRODUCTION. 

possible  that  there  should  be  such.  And  who  sees  not  now,  that 
they  are  incumbered  with  as  many  difficulties  as  may  peihaps  be 
urged  against  any  science  whatever. 

It  were  endless  to  enumerate  the  things  we  must  believe,  without 
being  capalilc  to  resolve  the  difficulties  about  them.  The  veriest 
infidel  must  suppose  that  something  is  eternal,  or  all  things  are  eter- 
nal, or  that  they  jumped  into  being  without  any  cause.  Whichso- 
ever of  these  positions  he  shall  choose,  he  is  led  into  a  labyrinth  of 
difficulties,  from  which  no  mortal  wit  can  extricate  him.  We  must 
all  own,  that  either  matter  and  motion  are  the  principle  of  thought ; 
or,  that  there  are  immaterial  substances  which  affect  matter,  and 
are  strangely  affected  by  what  befals  it.  Whichsoever  side  any 
shall  choose,  he  is  cast  upon  inextricable  difficulties.  IMuch  more 
might  be  said  on  this  head  ;  but  what  has  been  said  is  more  than 
enough  to  shew,  that  if  this  course  is  taken,  it  saps  the  foundations 
of  all  human  knowledge,  and  there  is  no  part  of  it  safe. 

Besides,  this  way  of  questioning  religion  upon  the  pretence  of 
difficulties  lying  against  it,  is  contrary  to  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  contradicts  the  practice  of  all  wise  men,  and  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  very  nature  of  our  faculties.  For,  if  I  have  a  clear 
tinexceptionable  and  convincing  proof  for  any  truth,  it  is  against  all 
reason  to  reject  it,  because  I  have  not  so  full  and  comprehensive 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  object,  as  is  ne- 
cessary to  enable  me  to  solve  all  difficulties  that  may  occur  about 
it:  Yea,  such  is  the  nature  of  our  faculties,  that  to  justify  in  the 
opinion  of  the  nicest  inquirers  after  truth,  nay,  to  extort  an  assent, 
clear  proof  is  sufficient ;  whereas,  to  untie  all  knots,  and  solve  all 
bjections,  perfect  and  all- comprehensive  knowledge  is  absolutely 
needful ;  which  man's  condition  allows  him  not  to  expect  about  the 
meanest  things.  And  the  more  remote  any  thing  lies  from  com- 
mon observation,  the  less  reason  there  is  still  to  look  for  a  fullness 
of  knowledge  and  exemption  from  difficulties.  If  therefore  men 
will  turn  sceptics  in  religion,  to  justify  themselves,  they  must  at- 
tempt the  proofs  whereon  it  is  grounded.  Sampson-like,  they  must 
grasp  the  pillars  that  support  the  fabric,  and  pull  them  down.  If 
this  is  not  done,  nothing  is  done.  And  he  that  will  undertake  this, 
must  have  a  full  view  of  their  force,  and  find  where  their  strength 
lies :  Now  a  serious  view  of  this  will  be  sufficient  to  deter  any  wise 
man  from  the  undertaking. 

In  a  word,  this  scepticism  can  yield  no  ease  or  satisfaction  to  a 
reasonable  soul.  For  if  a  man  shall  think  rationally,  his  reason  will 
suggest  to  him,  that  though  all  religion  at  present  seems  uncertain 
to  him,  yet  upon  trial  perhaps  he  may  find  the  grounds  of  religion 
so  evident,  that  he  cannot  withhold  his  assent.  This  will  at  least 
oblige  him  lo  a  serious  inquiry  into  the  truth.  Next,  in  uncertain- 
ties (supposing,  after  serious  inquiry,  he  still  thinks  tlje   truths  of 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

^'eligiou  ^ch)  a  prudent  man  will  incline  to  what  is  moat  probable- 
Finally  he  will  choose  and  steer  such  a  course  of  life  as  ^vill  be 
safest,  in  case  he  shall  in  experience  afterwards  find,  that  there  is 
a  God,  and  a  future  state.  All  which  shew  the  folly  of  our  scep- 
tics, and,  were  it  seriously  considered,  w^ould  much  mar  their  design, 
which  is,  thereby  to  justify  a  licentious  life. 

Now  we  have  considered,  and  sufficiently  exposed  the  two  first 
branches  of  the  abovementioned  choice :  and  consequently  every 
roan  must  find  himself  cast  upon  a  necessity  of  adopting  one  of  these 
two — He  must  either  betake  himself  to  na/<?ra/  religion,  and  so  turn 
Deist ;  or  he  must  embrace  the  scriptures,  and  turn  Christian :  For 
as  to  the  Jervish  religion,  it  is  not  likely  to  gain  many  converts. 

If  therefore  we  are  able  to  demonstrate  the  utter  insuffixiency  of 
natural  religion,  in  opposition  to  the  deists,  who  set  up  for  it,  we 
reduce  every  man  to  this  choice,  that  he  must  be  a  Christian  or  an 
Atheist;  or,  which  is  the  same  upon  the  matter,  a  man  of  710  reli- 
gion; (or  an  insi^cieat  religion  is  in  effect  none.  And  to  demon- 
strate this,  that  natural  religion  is  utterly  insufficient,  that  unas- 
sisted reason  is  not  able  to  guide  us  to  happiness,  and  satisfy  us  as 
to  the  great  concerns  of  religion,  is  the  design  of  the  subsequent 
sheets.  In  them  we  have  clearly  stated  and  endeavored  with 
closeness  to  argue  this  point.  We  have  brought  the  pleadings  of  the 
learned  I^ord  JFferberf,  and  the  modern  deists,w\\o  do  but  copy  after 
him,' to  the  bar  o(  reason,  examined  their  utmost  force,  and,  if  I  mis- 
take it  not,  found  them  weak  and  inconclusive. 

As  for  the  occasion  of  my  engagement  in  this  controversy,  it  was 
not  such  as  commonly  gives  rise  to  writings  of  this  nature.  I  un- 
dertook it  with  no  design  of  publication.  I  was  provoked  by  no 
adversary  in  particular.  But  every  man  being  obliged  to  under- 
stand upon  what  grounds  he  receives  his  religion,  I  istudied  the 
point  for  my  own  satisfaction,  and  in  compliance  with  my  duty. 

As  for  the  reasons  of  my  undertaking  this  part  of  the  contro- 
versy, I  shall  not  say  much.  The  only  wise  GOD,  who  has  deter- 
mined the  times  before  appointed,  and  made  of  one  blood  all  natiom^ 
of  men  that  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  has  appointed  them  the  bounds 
of  their  habitation,  lias  cut  out  different  pieces  of  work  for  them, 
cast  them  into  different  circumstances,  and  hereby  exposed  them  to 
trials  and  temptations  that  are  not  of  the  same  kind.  As  every 
man  is  obliged  to  cultivate  in  the  best  manner  he  can  the  bounds 
of  land  assigned  to  him,  and  defend  liis  possessions  ;  so  every  one 
is  concerned  to  improve  and  defend  after  the  best  form  he  can, 
those  truths,  which  his  circumstances  have  obliged  him  to  lake  pe- 
culiar notice  of,  and  which  his  temptations,  of  whatever  sort,  have 
endeavoured,  or  may  attempt  to  wje?t  out  of  his  hands. 

Besides,  we  live  in  a  warlike  age,  wherein  every  one  must  be  ol" 
a  party  in  matters  of  religion.      4nd  religion  is  a  cause  in  whicl), 


38  INTRODUCTIONS. 

when  disputed,  no  man  is  allowed  to  stand  neutral.  As  all  are  con- 
cerned to  choose  the  right  side,  so  every  one  is  obliged  to  provide 
himself  with  the  best  armour  his  arsenal  can  afford,  both  for  the  de- 
fending himself  and  others  that  own  the  same  cause,  and  to  annoy 
the  common  enemy.  Nor  is  this  work  peculiarly  confined  unto 
those,  Avho  by  office  are  obliged  to  it :  For  in  publico  discrimine, 
est  omnis  homo  miles. ^ 

Besides,  it  is  well  known,  that  the  most  bold  attempt  that  ever 
was  made  upon  revealed  religion,  since  the  entrance  of  Christianity 
into  the  world,  has  been  made,  in  our  day,  by  men,  who  have  set  up 
for  natuml  religion^  and  who  have  gone  over  from  Christianity/  unto 
refined  Paganism;  under  the  name  of  Deism.  Two  things  they 
have  attempted ; — to  overthrow  revelation,  and  to  advance  natural 
religion.  The  last  work  has  been  undertaken,  I  may  without  breach 
of  charity  boldly  say  it,  not  so  much  out  of  any  real  affection  to 
the  principles  or  duties  of  natural  religion,  as  to  avoid  the  odium 
inevitably  following  upon  a  renunciation  of  all  religion  ;  and  because 
they  saw  that  men  would  not  easily  quit  Christianity,  without  some- 
thing were  substituted  in  its  room,  that  might  at  least  have  the 
name  of  religion.  Revealed  religion  has  been  worthily  defended 
by  many,  of  old  and  of  late,  at  home  and  abroad;  but  the  insnjfi- 
tiencij  of  natural  religion  has  been  less  insisted  on,  at  least  in  that 
way  that  is  necessary  to  straiten  an  obstinate  adversary.  And  se- 
veral things  incline  me  to  think  an  attempt  of  this  nature  seasona- 
ble, if  not  necessary,  at  this  time. 

The  times  are  infectious,  and  Deism  is  the  contagion  that  spreads. 
And  that  which  has  carried  many,  particularly  of  our  unwary  youth 
of  the  better  qiKility,  off  their  feet,  and  engaged  them  to  espouse 
this  cause, — is  the  high  pretence  that  this  way  makes  to  reason. 
They  tell  us,  that  their  religion  is  entii-ely  reasonable,  and  that  they 
admit  nothing,  save  what  this  dictates  to  them,  and  they  endeavoi- 
to  represent  others  as  easy  and  credulous  men.  Now  I  thought  it 
meet  to  demonstrate,  for  undeceiving  of  such,  that  none  are  more 
credulous,  none  have  less  reason  upon  their  side,  than  they  who 
set  up  for  rational  religion. 

Again,  we  have  stood  sufficiently  long  upon  the  defensive  part, 
we  have  repulsed  their  efforts  against  revelation.  It  seems  now 
seasonable,  that  we  should  act  offensively,  and  try  how  they  can  de- 
fend their  own  religion,  and  whether  they  can  give  as.  good  account 
of  It  as  has  been  given  of  Christianity.  To  stand  always  upon  the 
defensive  part,  Is  to  make  the  enemy  doubt  ours,  and  turn  proud  of 
their  own  strength. 

The  reaeonableness  of  this  will  further  appear,  if  we  consider 
Jhe  quality  of  the  adversaries  we  have  to  do  with,  and  their  manner 
of  nianagement.     Tiie  enemies  who  have  engaged  revealed  religion. 

*  "  In  a  ll:nv;  of  public  danp^-er  every  man  is  a  soldier." 


INTRODUCTION,  39 

sensible  of  their  own  weakness  to  defend  themselves  at  home,  and 
endure  close  fight,  do  commonly  make  inroads,  where  they  expect 
none,  or  a  faint  resistance.  They  desrgn  not  so  much  to  conquer,  as 
to  disturb.  Jest,  buffoonry,  or  at  best  sophisms,  and  such  little  ar- 
tifices, are  the  arguments  they  use,  and  the  weapons  of  their  war- 
fare. The  best  way  to  make  such  rovers  keep  at  home  is,  to  car- 
ry the  war-  into  their  own  country,  and  to  ruin  those  retreats  they 
JJetake  themselves  to  when  attacked.  They  have  seen  what  Chris- 
tians can  say  in  defence  of  revealed  religion.  It  is  now  high  time 
to  see  how  they  can  acquit  themselves  on  behalf  of  natural  reli- 
gion. It  is  easy  to  impugn.  It  is  a  defence  that  gives  the  best  proof 
of  the  defender's  skill,  and  says  most  for  the  cause  he  maintains. 

I  own  indeed  that  most  who  have  evinced  the  truth  of  revealed 
religion,  have  said  something  of  the  weakness  of  natural  religion. 
But  this  has  only  been  by  the  bye,  and  in  a  way  too  loose  to  strait- 
en obstinate  opposers,  not  to  speak  of  the  too  large  concessions  that 
liave  been  made  them  by  some. 

Finally,  natnral  religion  being  the  only  retreat,  to  which  the 
apostates  from  Christianity  betake  themselves,  and  whereby  they 
think  themselves  secured  from  the  imputation  of  plain  atheism,  it  is 
hoped,  that  a  full  and  convincing  discovery  of  its  weakness,  may 
incline  such  as  are  not  quite  debauched,  to  look  how  they  quit 
Christianity,  and  engage  with  that  which,  if  this  attempt  is  success- 
ful, must  henceforward  pass  for  disguised  Atheism. 

It  now  only  remains,  that  I  offer  some  account  of  the  reasons  that 
have  induced  me  to  manage  this  controversy  in  a  method  so  far 
different  from  that  which  is  commonly  used.  The  reasons  of  this 
have  been  above  insinuated,  and  1  shall  not  insist  much  further  on 
them,  lest  I  should  seem  to  detract  from  performances  to  which  I 
pay  a  very  great  regard.  The  method  some  liave  chosen,  in  ma- 
naging this  controversy  with  the  Deists,  to  me  appears  inconve- 
nient. They  begin  with  an  endeavor  to  establish  the  grounds  of 
natural  religion,  and  by  the  help  of  light  Iwrrowed  from  revelation, 
they  carry  the  matter  so  far,  and  extend  natural  religion  to  such  a 
compass,  that  it  looks  pretty  complete-like  ;  which  has  too  evident 
a  tendency  to  lessen  its  real  defects,  and  make  them  appear  incon- 
siderable. 

Again,  I  am  afiaid  that  some  have  gone  near  to  give  up  the  Avhole 
cause.  This  fault  I  would  be  very  loth  to  charge  upon  all.  Many 
I  know  have  dealt  faithfully  in  it,  and  deserve  praise.  But  how  to 
excuse  some  in  this  case  I  know  not.  One  tells  us  that,  "It  is 
"  true  indeed  that  natural  religion  declares  and  comprises  all  the 
"  parts  of  religion,  that  are  generally  and  in  all  times  either  neces- 
"  sary  or  requisite  !"*  And  much  more  to  the  same  purpose. 
This  is  much  such  another  assertion  of  the  weakness  of  natural  re- 

*  Discourse  concerning^  Kataral  and  Revealed  Religion,  by  Stcplicii  N\<:«. 
P,arl  3,  Chitp.  1.  p;»irc  9r.  ^         i  .   ^ 


40  INTRODUCTION. 

ligion  against  the  Delstn,  as  the  same  author  gives  us  of  the  per' 
feclion  of  the  sotnpiures,  in  opposition  to  the  same  persons  in  another 
place  of  liis  book.  "  I  could,"  says  he  "  prove,  1  think,  by  unde- 
"  niable,  unavoidable  instances,"!  what  Mr.  Gregory  of  Oxford 
says  in  his  preface  to  some  critical  notes  on  the  scriptures  that  he 
published,  viz.  "  That  there  is  no  author  whatsoever  that  has  suf- 
"  fered  so  much  by  the  hand  of  time  as  the  Bible  has."  Is  this 
the  way  to  overthrow  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion,  and  to  de- 
fend the  scriptures  ?  This  is  not  the  only  remark  1  could  make 
upon  this  author,  were  it  my  design.  But  this  may  let  us  see  how 
necessary  it  is  to  deal  a  little  more  plainly  with  the  assertors  of 
natural  religion. 

Further,  to  adorn  natural  religion  with  the  improvements  bor- 
rowed from  revelation^  is  the  ready  way  to  furnish  those  who  set 
up  for  its  sufficiency,  with  pretences  to  serve  their  design,  and  to 
straiten  themsejves,  when  they  come  to  shew  its  defects.  And 
perhaps  I  should  not  mistake  it  far,  if  I  asserted,  that  the  strongest 
arguments  urged  by  Deists,  have  been  drawn  from  unwary  conces- 
sions made  them  by  their  adversaries. 

And  this  is  the  more  considerable,  that  the  persons,  with  whom 
we  have  to  do  in  this  controversy,  are,  generally  speaking,  either 
of  no  great  discernment,  or  of  small  application  ;  who  have  no  great 
mind  to  wait  upon  the  business,  or  look  to  the  bottom  of  it.  Now 
when  such  persons  find  many  things  granted,  they  are  ready  to 
think  all  is  yielded,  and  so  run  away  with  it,  as  if  the  cause  were 
their  own.  That  such  concessions  have  done  no  good  service, 
there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe.  This  I  am  sure  of,  it  would 
have  beeli  long  before  the  Deists  could  have  trimmed  up  natural 
religion  so  handsomely,  ainl  made  it  appear  so  like  a  sufficient  reli- 
gion, as  some  have  done,  who  meant  no  such  thing. 

Finally,  the  apostle  Paul's  method  is  doubtless  most  worthy  of 
imitation,  who,  when  he  is  to  prove  justification  by  faith,  and  to  en- 
force an  acceptance  of  it,  first  strongly  convinces  of  sin,  and  then 
urges  the  utter  insufficiency  of  v.orks  for  accomplishing  that  purpose. 
The  best  way  in  my  opinion,  to  engage  men  to  close  witli  revealed 
religion,  is  strongly  to  argue  the  insufficiency  of  mdural  religion. 

As  to  the  performance  itself,  and  what  1  have  therein  attained, 
I  am  not  the  competent  judge.  Every  reader  must  judge  as  he 
sees  cause.  1  have  not  the  vanity  to  expect  that  it  should  please 
every  body.  The  vast  compass  of  the  subject,  the  variety  of  the 
purposes,  the  uncommonness  of  many,  if  not  most  of  them,  with  -le- 
spect  to  which  I  was  left  to  walk  in  untrodden  paths,  and  other  diffi- 
culties of  a  like  nature,  with  candid  and  judicious  readers  will  go  a 
great  way  towards  my  excuse  in  lesser  escapes.  As  for  the  sub- 
stance of  the  ensuing  discourse,  I  am  bold  to  hope,  that  upon  the 
strictest  trial  it  shall  be  found  true,  and  that  it  is  pleaded  for  in 
vrords  of  truth  and  soberness. 

t  UH  supra,  page  199- 


AN  INQUIRY,  ^c. 


C  H  A  P.    I. 

Giving  a  short  account  of  the  rise,  orcasions,  and  progress  of 
Deism,  especially  in  England  ;  the  opinioiis  of  the  Deists,  and  the 
different  sorts  of  them. 

innHERE  is  no  man,  who  makes  it  his  concern  to  understand 
-*-  what  the  state  of  religion  has,  of  late  years,  been,  and  now  is, 
particularly  in  these  nations,  but  knows  that  Deisin  has  made  a  con- 
siderable progress.  Since  therefore  it  is  against  those  who  go  un- 
der this  name,  that  this  undertaking  is  designed,  it  is  highly  expedi- 
ent, if  not  plainly  necessary,  that  in  the  entry,  we  give  some  ac- 
count of  the  occasions  and  rise  o(  Deism,  the  principal  opinions  of 
the  Deists,  and  some  other  things  that  may  tend  to  clear  the  mat- 
ter discoursed  in  the  subsequent  sheets. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  inquire  more  largely  into  the  causes 
of  that  general  defection  in  principle  and  practice  from  the  doctrine 
of  the  gospel  which  now  every  where  obtains ;  this  has  been  judi- 
ciously done  by  others. 

Nor  will  it  be  needful  to  write  at  length  the  history  of  deisjn. 
This  I  think  impracticable,  because  the  growth  of  this  sect  has 
been  very  secret,  and  they  have  generally  disguised  their  opinions: 
And  perhaps  till  of  late,  they  scarce  had  any  settled  opinion  in 
mattei-s  of  religion,  if  yet  they  have.  But  though  it  were  prac- 
ticable, as  it  is  not,  yet  it  is  not  necessary  to  our  present  undertak- 
ing; and  if  it  were  attempted,  would  require  more  helps,  and  more 
leisure,  besides  other  things,  than  I  am  master  of. 

One  has  of  late  written  a  pamphlet  bearing  this  title, "  An  Ac- 
count of  the  Growth  of  Deism  in  England."*  The  author  of  it  is 
not  a  deist,  yet  has  done  what  in  him  lies  to  promote  their  cause, 
by  setting  off,  with  all  the  art  and  address  he  is  master  of,  those 
things  which  he  says  have  tempted  many  to  turn  deists,  without 
any  attempt  to  antidote  the  poison  of  them. 

•  Printed  anno.  1690. 


42  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

Another  has  wrote  Reflections  upon  this  pamphlet,  wherein  he 
has  sufficiently  shewn,  that  those  alleged  by  the  former  author, 
were  not  sufficient  reasons  to  justify  any  in  turning  deist.  But  I 
conceive  that  is  not  the  main  question.  If  he  had  a  mind  to  dis- 
prove the  other  author,  he  should  have  made  it  appear,  that  the 
particulars  condescended  upon  by  his  .antagonist,  had  no  real  influ- 
ence into  this  apostacy.  Whether  they'gave  a  just  cause  for  it  is 
another  question.  I  am  satisfied  they  did  not.  But  neither  do  those 
reasons  of  this  defection,  condescended  on  by  the  reflector,  give  a 
sufficient  ground  for  it.  Nor  are  there  any  reasons  that  can  justi- 
fy any  in  relinquishing  Cluistianity.  The  inquiry  in  this  case  is 
not,  Mhat  just  giounds  have  the  deists  to  warrant  them  in,  or  en- 
i;age  them  to  this  defection,  for  all  christians  own  it  impossible  they 
thould  have  any  ;  but  the  question  is,  M'hat  lias  given  occasion  to 
any,  thus  to  fall  off  from  our  religion  ?  Now  I  conceive  both 
these  writers  have  hit  upon  several  of  the  true  reasons  of  this; 
though  the  first  is  apparently  guilty  of  deep  imprudence,  I  wish  I 
might  not  say  malice,  against  Christianity,  in  proposing  those  temp- 
tations, with  all  the  advantage  he  could  give  them,  and  that  without 
nuy  antidote  :  For  which  and  other  faults  he  has  been  justly,  though 
modcstl}'  censured  by  the  reflector. 

Although  both  of  them  have  given  some  account  of  this  matter, 
yet  I  conceive  so  much  has  not  been  said  as  may  supercede  a  further 
inquiry,  or  make  us  despair  of  observing  not  a  few  things  that  have 
not  had  an  inconsiderable  influence,  which  are  overlooked  by  both. 
"Wherefore  we  shall  in  a  few  words  propose  our  opinion  of  this  mat- 
ter. And  in  delivering  it,  we  shall  not  pursue  the  design  of  any 
parti/,  but  make  it  evident  that  all  parties  have  had  their  own  ac- 
cession to  the  growth  of  this  evil.  Though  I  am  sensible  that  this 
•cccount  will  fall  heavy  upon  a  set  of  men  in  particular,  who  have  of 
late  years  claimed  the  name  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  though 
inijustly,  if  we  take  her  Homilies,  Articles,  and  consentient  judg- 
ment of  lier  renowned  bishops  from  the  time  of  the  Reformation  to 
Bishop  Laud's  time,  for  the  standard  of  her  doctrine  ;*  and  I  see 
r.o  reason  v,  hy  we  ought  not.  I  [)remised  this  to  avoid  any  sus- 
pic'on  of  a  design  to  brand  the  Church  of  England,  with  an  acces- 
tjion  to  the  growth  of  Deism.  And  even  in  speaking  of  that  set  of 
men,  whom"  I  take 'to  be  principally  guilty,  I  would  not  be  under- 
stood to  speak  so  much  of  the  design  of  the  men,  as  of  the  native 
tendencT/  of  their  doctrine  and  practices. 

Tlie  many  gioundless,  nay  ridiculous  pretences  to  revelation, 
and  bold  impostures  of  the  Chmch  of  Rome,  and  of  those  who 
have  Euppoiled  that  interest ;    their  impudence  in  obtruding  upon 

*  See  Bishop  of  Saruiu's  Explanation  of  the  Thirlv-ninc  Articles,  ou  art^ 
17:  p.  168. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        43 

the  world,  doctrines  cross  to  reason,  ami  sense,  awl  principle;*  of 
morality  subversive  of  Xhe  whole  law  of  nature  yf  their  scandalous 
endeavour  to  bespatter  the  scriptures,  and  weaken  their  authority, 
on  purpose  to  bring  tliem  into  discredit,  to  make  way  for  the  design- 
ed advancement  oi  their  wild  traditions  into  an  equality  with  them, 
and  to  bring  the  world  under  a  necessity  pf  throwing  themselves  up- 
on the  care  and  conduct  of  their  infallible  guidcy  though  they  can- 
not yet  tell  us  which  is  he  ;  their  gross  ami  discernible  hypocrisy 
in  carrying  on  secular,  nay  impious  and  unjust  designs,  under  the 
specious  pretences  of  holiness  am]  religion  {  their  zeal  for  a  form 
and  skew  of  religion,  a  worship  plainly  t^atrical,t  while  the  lives  of 
their  Popes,  Cardinals,  Monks,  ^uns,  ami  all  their  highest  preten- 
ders to  devotion  have  been  scandalously  lewd,  even  to  a  proverb  ;!^ 
the  immoral  morality,  atheistical  diviniti/,  and  abominable  practi- 
ces of  the  Jesuits,  those  zeaJous  supporters  and  strongest  props  of 
the  Popish  interest,  but  in  very  deed  the  worst  enemies  of  mankind, 
the  subverters  of  all  true  pi^fi/,  morality,  and  government  in  the  - 
world  ;  tliese,  I  say,  togetliec  with  many  other  evils  of  a  like  nature, 
every  where  observable  in  that  churcli,  have  been,  for  a  very  long 
time  too  evident  and  gross  to  be  denied,  or  hid  from  pei-sons  of  any 
tolerable  sagacity,  living  among  them  :    And,  by  the  observation  of 
those  and  the  like  evils,  continued  in,  approved,  justified,  and  adher- 
ed unto  ;  and  the  cruelty  of  that  church  in  destroying  all  those  who 
would  not  receive,  by  wholesale,  all  those  shocking  absurdities,  not  1 
few  who  lived  among  them,  and  were  unacquainted  with  the  power 
of  religion,  tkit  was  necessary  to  engage  them  cordially  to  espons6 
the  reforr^ed  interest,    got  their  minds  leavened  with  prejudice;*, 
and  furnished  with  specious  pretences  against  all  revealed  religion  ; 
which  they  the  more  boldly  entertained,  because  they  knew  it  was 
less  criminal  to  turn  Athiest  than  Protestant  in  places  where  the  Pc- 
gi^h  interest  prevailed. 

These  prejudices  once  taken  up,  daily  grew  stronger,  by  the  ob- 
servation of  new  instances  of  this  sort,  and  the  constancy  of  those 
of  that  communion  in  acting  the  same  part.  And  men  of  wit  and 
learning,  who  soonest  saw  into  this  mystery,  and  had  no  mward 
bonds  on  them,  failed  not  to  hand  about  and  cultivate  those  preten- 
ces to  that  degree,  that  many  begun  to  own  their  apostacy,  if  not 
openly,  yet  more  covertly. 

Not  long  after  the  beginning  of  the  last  elapsed  century,  so  far  as 
I  can  learn,  some  in  France  and  Italy  began  to  form  a  sort  of  a  new- 
party.  They  called  themselves  7  heists,  or  Deists  ;  imjustly  pre- 
tending that  they  were  the  only  persona  who  owned  the  0/»e  tnit 

t  Growth  of  Deism,  p.  5.    Reflections  on  it,  p.  8. 

i  Sec  Jesuit's  Morals. 

!)  Clarkson's  Pjrictical  Divinity  of  P.ipists. 


44  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

God.  And  hereby  they  plainly  intimated  that  they  had  rejecteif 
the  name  of  Christ.  They  rejected  all  revelation  as  cheat,  priest- 
craft, and  imposture,  pretending  that  there  was  nothing  sincere  in 
religion,  save  what  nature's  light  taught.  However,  being  generally 
persons  too  fond  of  a  present  life,  and  too-  uncertain  about  a  future, 
they  thought  it  not  meet  to  put  too  much  to  the  hazard  for  this  their' 
pretended  religion.  It  was  a  refined  sort  of  Paganism  which  they 
embraced,  and  they  were  to  imitate  the  Heathen  philosophers,  who, 
whatever  thei^  peculiar  sentiments  were  in  matters  of  religion,,  yet 
for  peace's  sake,  they  looked  on  it  as  safe  to  follow  the  mode,  and 
comply  with  the  religious  usages  that  prevailed  in  the  places  where 
they  lived.  That  which  made  this  party  the  more  considerable 
was  that  it  was  made  up  of  men,  who  pretended  to  learning,  ingenu- 
ity, breeding,  and  who  set  up  for  wits.  They  pretended  to  write 
after  the  copy  of  the  new  philosophers,  who  scorned  that  philosoph- 
ical slavery,  which  former  ages  had  been  under  to  Aristotle.  They 
inculcated  that  credulity  was  no  less  dangerous  in  matters  of  religion 
than  in  matters  of  philosophy.  And  herein  certainly  they  were  not 
mistaken.  But  one  may  justly  suspect,  that  at  the  same  time, 
"while  they  pretended  to  guard  against  easiness  in  believing,  they 
liave  fallen  into  the  worst  credulity,  as  well  as  ruining  incredulity : 
yor  none  is  so  credulous  as  an  atheistr 

Much  about  the  same  time,  some  novel  opinions  began  to  be 
much  entertained  in  Holland,  in  matters  of  religion.  The  broaeh- 
•?rs  of  them  being  men  learned  and  diligent,  carefully  cultivated 
(them,  till  they  were  ripened  into  something  very  near-akin  to  plain 
f^ocinianism,  which  is  but  one  remove  from  Deism.  It  was  not  long 
after  this  when  those  new-fangled  notions  took  footing  in  England 
and  began  to  be  embraced  and  countenanced  by  some  topping 
churchmen,  who,  forgetful  of  their  Articles,  Homilies,  and  Subscript 
lions,  and  the  conduct  of  their  predecessors,  carefully  maintained 
and  zealously  propagated  this  new  divinily, 

I  shall  not  make  bold  to  judge  what  the  designs  of  those  were, 
tfho  appeared  most  zealous  for  these  new  notions  :  This  is  to  be 
left  to  the  judgment  of  him,  who  searches  the  heart  of  the  children  of 
Tnen,  and  will  bring  forth  things  that  are  now  hid.  But  there  were 
not  n  few  reasons  to  suspect  that  the  Jesuits  had  a  considerable 
hand  in  dipseminating  them,  and  that  the  others  were  their  tools  ; 
though  it  is  likely  they  did  not  suspect  this.  The  Jesuits  vaunted 
that  they  had  planted  the  sovereign  drug  of  Arminianism  in  Eng- 
land, which  in  time  would  purge  out  the  northern  heresy.*  This  it 
^ould  not  otherwise  do,  than  by  shaking  men  as  to  all  principles  of 
religion.      And  it  £3  a  known  maxim,  that  7nake  men  once  Atheists 

■*  Ru3hv,-crth's  Colic.'!.  p.irt  1,  paj.  47^.  Letter  by  a  Jesuit  to  the  Kec- 
^OT  of  Brussels.    Se-pag'.  &?,  iij'i 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        45 

it  will  be  easy  to  turn  them  Papists.  The  jealousies  many  disicern- 
ing  people  had  of  this,  were  considerably  increased  when  it  was 
Been  with  what  violence  the  abettors  of  this  new  divinity  appeared 
against  the  more  moderate  part  of  the  church  of  England,  as  well  as 
the  dissenters,  upon  the  account  of  some  ceremonies,  owned  hy 
themselves  as  indifferent  in  their  own  nature  ;  while  at  the  same 
time,  they  expressed  a  great  deal  of  tenderness  if  not  respect  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  made  proposals  for  union  with  her. 

But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  it  is  certain  that  this  divinity 
opens  a  door,  and  has  given  encouragement  to  that  aporstacy  from 
Christianity,  that  has  since  followed,  and  still  increases  under  the 
name  of  Deism. 

This  divinity  teaches  us,  that  no  more  is  necessary  to  be  believ-r 
ed,  in  order  to  salvation,  save  what  is  confessed  and  owned  by  all 
that  are  called  christians.  Dicunt  se  non  videre  wide,  aut  qvo 
wodoy  prater  pauca  ista,  quit  apudomnesin  confesso  sunt,  alia 
plura  adhuc  necessaria  esse  ostendi  aut  elici  possit  ;*  that  is, 
"  They  see  not  how  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  besides  these 
"  few  things,  which  are  by  them  allowed,  any  others  are  necessary 
"  to  salvation."  Consonantly  hereto,  they  expressly  deny  any 
thing  to  be  fimdamental  which  lias  been  controverted,  or  afterr 
wards  may  be  so.f  In  a  word  they  teach  that  we  are  not  necessa- 
rily to  believe  any  thing,  save  what  is  evident  to  us.  And  that 
only  is  to  be  reckoned  evident,  which  is  confessed  by  all,  and  to 
which  nothing  that  has  any  appearance  of  truth  can  be  opposed. 
Now  after  this,  what  is  left  in  Christianity  ?  The  divinify,  the  pv- 
rity,  the  perfection  and  svfficAency  of  the  scriptures  ;  the  Trinity, 
Deity  of  Christ,  his  satii^f action,  the  whole  dispensation  of  the  Spi- 
rit, justification  by  faith  atone,  and  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian 
religion,  have  been  and  are  controveitcd.  None  of  them  there- 
fore is  necessary  to  salvation.  Are  not  men  left  at  liberty,  withr 
out  hazard  of  their  salvation,  to  renounce  all,  save  what  is  common 
to  Christianity  with  natural  religion  ?  A  nd  since  even  some  of  its 
most  considerable  articles  about  Ihe  attribides  of  GOD  and  hi;-; 
providence, fularercivards  and  pun  I  shin  eiilf^,  have  been,  or  may  hfi 
rontrovertet),  why  may  we  not  reciron  them  unnecessary  too  ?  Thf = 
Deists  have  borrowed  their  doctrine  of  evidence,  and  opposed  it  to 
the  Christian  religion.  One  of  them  tells  u?,  "  If  our  happiness 
"  depends  upon  our  belief,  we  cannot  firmly  believe,  till  our  reason 
"  Ikj  convinced  of  a  supernatural  religion.'"."!;  ^^^^  ^'  ^'^'^  reasons  of 
it  were  evident,  there  could  be  no  longer  any  contention  about  re- 
ligion.   How  little  does  this  differ  from  that  divinity  which  tells  «?, 


*  Kemonstr.  Apol.  Fol.  12. 

t  n,i.  Cjp.  24,  Fol.  276;  and  Can.  2a,  Fol.  2£:. 

i  Oracles  of  Reason,  pai^.  206.    Letter  by  A,  W.  to  0.  PI 


46  AN  INQUmy  INTO  THE 

that  GOD  is  obliged  to  offer  us  such  arguments  to  which  nothing 
that  has  an  appearance  of  truth  can  be  opposed  !  And  if  this  be 
wanting,  they  are  not  to  be  received  as  articles  of  faith.  Now  if 
after  this  the  Deists  can  but  offer  any  thing  that  has  an  appearance 
of  truth  against   Christianity,  they  are  free  to  reject  it  in  cumxilo. 

This  divinity  reduces  Christianity  to  mere  moraliii/.  Nothing 
else  is  universally  agreed  to,  if  that  be  so.  *'  The  supposition  of 
*'  sin,  (says  one  that  wore  a  mitre)  does  not  bring  In  any  new  reli- 
*'  gion,  but  only  makes  new  circumstances  and  names  of  old  things, 
*'  and  requires  new  helps  and  advantages  to  improve  our  powers, 
"  and  to  encourage  our  endeavors  :  And  thus  the  law  of  grace  is 
"  nothing  but  a  restitution  of  the  law  of  nature."* . 

And  further,  lest  we  should  think  this  morality,  wherein  they 
place  the  whole  of  Christianity,  owes  its  being  to  the  agency  of 
the  sanctifying  Spirit,  we  are  told,  that  "the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
"  the  grace  of  Christ,  when  used  as  distinct  from  moral  abilities 
**  and  performances,  signify  nothing/ 'f  And  a  complaint  is 
made  of  some  who  fill  the  world  "  with  a  bu2  and  noise  of  the  di- 
"  vine  Spirit."!  Hence  many  sermons  were  rather  such  as  be- 
came the  chair  of  a  philosopher^  teaching  cthicks,  than  that  of  one, 
who  by  office  is  bound  to  know  and  preach  nothing  save  Christ 
and  him  crucified.  Heathen  morality  has  been  substituted  in  the 
room  of  gospel  holiness.  And  ethicks  by  some  have  been  preach- 
ed instead  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  And  if  any  complaints  were 
made  of  this  conduct,  though  by  men  who  preached  the  necessity 
of  holiness,  urged  by  all  the  gospel  motives,  and  carefully  practised 
what  they  preached  in  their  lives,  they  were  exposed  and  reject- 
ed, and  the  persons  who  offered  them  were  reflected  on  as  enemies 
to  morality  ;  whereas  the  plain  truth  of  the  case  was,  they  did  not 
complain  of  men  being  taught  to  be  moral,  but  that  they  were  not 
taught  somewhat  more. 

After  men  once  were  taught  that  the  controverted  doctrines  of 
fcligion  were  not  necessafy  to  salvation,  and  that  all  that  was  ne^ 
cessary  thereto  was  to  be  referred  to  and  comprehended  under 
morality^  and  that  there  was  no  need  of  regeneration,  or  the  sanc^ 
tifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  order  to  the  perfornv 
ance  of  our  duty,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  light  the  difference  was  to 
be  accounted  betwixt  a  Christian  and  an  honest  moral  Heathen. 
And  if  any  small  temptation  offered,  how  natural  was  it  fop  men 
to  judge  that  the  hazard  was  not  great,  to  step  over  from  Chris- 
tianity to  Deism,  which  is  Paganism  a-la-mode.  And  to  encou- 
rage them  to  it,  it  is  well  known  how  favourably  many  used  to  ex- 

*  S.  Park's  Defence  of  Ecclcs.  Poll.  pag.  324', 
j  Idem  ibid,  pap.  343. 
if  Eccles.  Polit.  pag.  57. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        47 

jpress  themselves  of  the  state  of  the  Heathens  ;  little  minding  that 
the  Christian  religion  represents  them  as  without  God,  and  with* 
eut  Christy  and  without  hope,  children  of  wrath,  and  dtad  in  tres- 
passes and  sins. 

I  need  not  stand  to  prove  that  this  divinity  is  nearly  allied  to  So- 
cinianism>  It  is  well  known  that  they  reckon  the  Socinians  sound 
in  the  fundamentals,  and  therefore  think  them  in  no  hazard,  pro- 
vided they  live  morally.  Hence  men  have  been  emboldened  to 
turn  Socinians.  And  every  body  may  see  by  what  easy  removes, 
one  may  from  Socinianism  arrive  at  Deism.  For  my  part  I  can 
see  little  difference  betwixt  the  two.  The  Deist  indeed  seems  the 
honester  man  of  the  two  ;  he  rejects  the  gospel,  and  owns  that  he 
does  so  :  The  other,  I  mean  the  Socinian,  pretends  to  retain  it. 
But  I  shall  not  insist  any  further  in  discovering  the  tendency  of 
this  new  diviniij/  to  libertinism  and  Detswj,  since  others  have  fully 
and  judiciously  done  it  from  the  most  unquestionable  arguments 
and  documents.  And  more  especially,  since  in  fact  it  is  evident, 
that  wherever  this  new  divinity  has  obtained,  Socinians  and  deists 
abound,  and  many  who  embrace  it  daily  go  over  to  them  ;  which 
I  take  to  be  the  surest  evidence,  if  it  be  duly  circumstantiate,  of 
the  tendency  of  this  tk>ctrine  to  encourage  those  opinions,  and 
least  liable  to  any  just  exception.  And  perhaps  I  might  add,  that 
few,  comparatively  verj'  few,  ^  ho  own  the  contrary  doctrine,  have 
gone  into  this  new  way,  where  that'  divinity  has  not  been  enter- 
tained. 

But  to  return  whence  we  have  for  a  little  digressed,  to  the  state 
of  religion  in  England.  No  sooner  were  they  advanced  to  power 
who  had  tlrunk  in  those  opinions,  but  presently  the  doctrines  that 
are  purely  evangelical,  by  which  the  apostles  converted  the  world, 
the  reformers  promoted  and  carried  on  our  reformation  from  Pope- 
ry, and  the  pious  preachers  of  the  church  of  England  did  keep 
somewhat  of  the  life  and  power  of  religion  amongst  their  people ; 
these  doctrines,  I  say,  began  to  be  decry ed  ;  justification  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  Luther  called  Arttculus  stantis  aut 
cadentis  ecc/csicE,*  that  redemption  that  is  in  him,  even  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  through  faith  in  his  blood  ;  the  mystery  of  the  grace, 
mercy  and  love  of  God  manifested  in  Christ ;  the  great  mystery  of 
godliness  ;  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  for  conviction,  renovation, 
sanctification,  consolation  and  edification  of  the  church,  by  a  supply 
of  spiritual  gifts,  and  other  doctrines  of  a  like  tendency,  were,  upon 
all  occasions,  ^)oldly  exposed,  and  discredited  in  press  and  pulpit. 
The  ministers  who  dared  to  avow  them,  from  a  conviction  of  the 
truth,  the  sense  of  the  obligation  of  their  promises  and  subscriptions 
to  the   Articles,   were   sure   to  have  no   preferment,  nay,  to   be 

*  "  An  article  by  which  the  Church  must  either  stand  or  f;;H.'* 


48  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

branded  with  the  odious  names  o^  Calv mists ^  Puritans^  Fa7iaticSf 
aiul  I  know  not  what. 

The  doctrines  of  faith  were  not  regarded  as  belonging  to  the 
ibundation  of  religion.  The  mo7*a/i/y  of  the  Bible  was  pretended 
I  he  only  thing  that  was  necessary  ;  and  as  much  of  the  dodriney  as 
all,  even  Socinians,  Quakers,  and  all  the  rest  were  agreed  in,  were 
Bufilcient.  And  if  any  opposed  this,  though  in  civil  language  and 
by  fair  arguments,  they  were  sure  to  be  exposed  as  enemies  to  rho^ 
caUiy  ;  although  their  adversaries  durst  not  put  the  contest  on  this 
issue  v/itli  them,  that  he  should  be  reckoned  the  greatest  friend  to 
morality  who  was  most  blameless  in  his  walk,  and  shewed  it  the 
greatest  practical  regard.  They  could  exercise  charity,  forbear-* 
itP.ce,  and  love  to  a  Socinian  that  had  renoiinced  all  the  fundamen- 
tal truths  of  religion  ;  but  none  to  a  poor  Dissenter,  who  sincerely 
believed  all  the  doctrinal  articles  ;  nay,  even  a  sober  churchman, 
who  could  not  consent  to  new  unauthorised  ceremonies,  was  become 
uitolerable.  So  that  men,  at  this  time,  might,  with  much  more  ere* 
dit  and  less  hazard,  turn  Socinian,  or  any  thing,  than  discover  the 
least  regard  to  truths  contained  in  the  articles,  owned  by  most  of 
the  Reformed  churches,  and  taught  by  our  own  Reformers.  This 
is  too  well  known  to  be  denied  by  any  one  who  knows  how  things 
were  carried  on  at  that  time  and  since.* 

Further,  whereas  preachers  formerly,  in  order  to  engage  men  to 
a  compliance  with  the  gospel,  were  wont  to  press  much  upon  thera 
their  guilt,  the  impossibility  of  standing  before  God  in  their  own 
righteousness,  their  impotency,  their  misery  by  the  fall,  the  necessi- 
ty of  regeneration,  illuminatioH,  the  power  of  grace  to  make  them 
willing  to  comply,  and  that  no  man  could  sincerely  call  Christ  Lord, 
and  be  subject  to  him  practically,  save  by  the  Hob/  Ghost;  care 
was  now  taken  to  unteach  them  all  this,  and  to  shew  them  how  very 
little  they  had  lo  -t  by  the  fall,  if  any  thing  was  lost  by  it,  either  in 
jjolnt  oi  light  to  discern,  or  power  and  inclination  to  practice  duty. 
They  were  told  havf  great  length  their  oivn  righteousness  would  go, 
and  that  it  would  do  their  business ;  they  might  safely  stand  before 
ixod  in  it  ;  or  if  there  was  any  room  for  Christ's  righteousness,  it 
ivas  only  to  piece  out  their  own,  where  it  was  wanting.  In  a  word, 
the  peopb  ^\'cre  told,  what  fine  persons  many  of  the  Heathens  were, 
wliD  kne\>'  iiothing  of  illumination,  regeneration,  or  what  the  Bible 
was,  and  how  little  odds,  if  any  at  all,  thers  was  betwixt  grace  and 
morality. 


•  Anyone  that  would  be  satisfied  in  the  tmth  of  this,  must  peruse  the  ser- 
mons and  writing's  published  by  that  parly  of  old  and  of  late,  and  the  histories 
oftiiose  times,  particularly  Rxish-wortli's  Collect,  the  speeches  of  the  lonjj  Par- 
liament, and  later  writing's,  and  they  wiii  find  documents  more  than  enoug'h.-. 
And  they  may  cuhsult  also  Honorii  liejii's  Comment,  de  atatii  Ecclesiic  jinjli- 
tunx. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        49 

And,  whereas  a  veneration  ofthe  Lord's  day  was  a  mean  to  keep 
people  under  some  concern  about  religion,  and  that  day  was  spent 
by  faithful  ministers,  in  pressing  upon  the  consciences  of  their  peo- 
ple, those  new  contemned  gospel  truths,  to  the  spoiling  of  the  whole 
plot ;  care  was  taken  to  discredit  and  bring  it  into  contempt.  Mi- 
nisters, instead  of  telling  them  on  that  day,  that  they  were  too  much 
inclined  to  sin,  levity,  folly,  and  vanity,  were  commanded  to  deal 
with  them  as  persons  too  much  inclined  to  be  serious  ;  and  instead 
of  preaching  the  gospel,  they  were  required,  under  the  highest 
pains,  to  entertain  them  with  a  profane  Book  of  Sports.  And  for 
disobedience  many  were  rejected.  And  that  they  might  be  taught 
by  example  as  well  as  precept,  a  Sundaf/^s  evening  mask  was  pub- 
licly acted,  where  were  present  persons  of  no  mean  note.* 

Moreover,  a  state  game  being  now  to  be  played,  the  pulpit,  press, 
religion  and  all  wers  made  basely  to  truckle  to  state  designs,  and  to 
the  enslaving  of  the  nations,  by  advancing  the  doctrines  of  passive 
obedience,  non-resistance,  and  jiire-divino-ship  of  kings  ;f  whereby 
men  of  religion  were  wounded  to  see  the  ordinances  of  Christ  pros- 
tituted to  such  projects,  as  were  entirely  foreign,  to  say  no  worse,  to 
the  design  of  thgir  institution  :  And  men  of  no  religion,  or  who  were 
not  fixed  about  it,  were  drawn  over  to  think  it  a  mere  cheat,  and 
that  the  design  of  it  was  only  to  carry  on  secular  interest  under  spe- 
«iious  pretences. 

At  length  by  those  means,  and  some  other  things,  which  are  not 
t)f  our  present  consideration,  concurring,  confusions  ripened  into  a 
civil  war,  whereby  every  one  was  left  to  speak,  write,  and  live  as 
he  pleased. 

Many  who  intended  no  hurt,  while  they  upon  honest  designs  in- 
quired into,  and  laid  open  the  faults  of  the  topping  clergy,  did  una- 
wares furnish  loose  and  atheistical  men  with  pretences  against  the 
ministry.  And  what  in  truth  gave  only  ground  for  a  dislike  of  the 
persons  faulty,  was  received  by  many  as  a  just  ground  of  prejudice 
against  the  very  pastoral  as  priest-craft,  and  all  who  are  clothed 
with  it,  as  a  set  of  self-designing  men. 

The  body  of  the  people,  who  had  been  debauched  by  the  exam- 
ple of  a  scandalous  clergtj,  and  hardened  in  sin  by  the  intermission 
oi  ?i}\  discipline,  (which  of  late  had  only  been  exercised  against  the 
sober  and  pious  who  could  not  go  into  the  measures  that  were  then 
taken,)  the  neglect  of  painful  preaching,  the  hook  of  sports  and 
pastimes,  and  who  had  their  heads  filled  with  airy  and  self-elating 
notions  of  man's  ability  to  good,  free  will,  universal  grace,  and  the 
like,  and  who  now,  when  they  much  needed  the  inspection  of  their 
faithful  pastors,  were  deprived  of  it,  many  of  them,  by  the  iniquity 

*  Rushworth's  Collect.  Part  2,  Vol.  1,  pape  459. 
t  Bishop  of  Sarum  oii  the  .Articles,  Art.  7,  page  152. 

7 


50  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

of  the  times,  being  forced  to  take  sanctuary  in  foreign  nations  ;  the 
people,  I  say,  by  these  things  turned  quite  giddy,  and  broke  into 
numberless  sects  and  parties.  Every  one  who  had  entertained 
those  giddy  notions  was  zealous,  even  to  madness,  for  propagating 
them,  and  thought  himself  authorised  to  plead  for  them,  print  for 
them,  and  preach  them.  The  office  of  the  ministry,  that  had 
before  been  rendered  contemptible  by  the  suppression  of  the  best 
preachers,  and  the  scandalous  lives  of  those  who  were  mainly  en- 
couraged, was  now  made  more  so,  by  the  intrusion  of  every  bold, 
ignorant  and  assuming  enthusiast.  The  land  was  filled  with  books 
of  controversy,  stuffed  mth  unsound,  offensive  and  scandalous  ten- 
ets, which  were  so  multiplied,  as  they  never  have  been  in  any  na- 
tion of  the  world,  in  so  small  a  compass  of  time.  The  generality  of 
the  people  being,  by  the  neglect  of  a  scandalous  ministry,  and  the 
discouragement  of  those  who  were  laborious,  drenched  in  ignorance, 
were  easily  shaken  by  those  controversial  writings  that  were  disse- 
minated  every  where,  and  became  an  easy  prey  to  every  bold  secta- 
rian. 

3Iany  of  the  better  sort  set  themselves  to  oppose  these  extremes, 
and  from  a  detestation  of  tliem  were  carried,  some  into  one  evil, 
some  into  another  ;  thereby  the  common  enemy  reaped  advantage, 
and  truth  suffered  even  by  its  defenders.  Ministers  who  desired  to 
be  faithful,  by  the  abounding  of  those  errors,  were  forced  to  op- 
pose them  in  public  ;  whereby  preaching  became  less  edifying,  and 
disputes  increased,  to  the  great  detriment  of  religion. 

The  nation  was  thus  crumbled  into  parties,  in  matters  both  civil 
and  religious,  the  times  turned  cloudy  and  dark.  Pretences  of  re- 
ligion were  dreadfnlly  abused  on  aJl  hands  to  subserve  other  designs. 
And  even  the  best  both  of  ministers  and  people  wanted  not  their 
own  sad  failings^  which  evil  men  made  the  \\  orst  use  of.  The  rvord 
and  providence  were  used  in  favour  of  so  many  cross  opinions  and 
practices,  that  not  a  few  began  to  run  into  that  same  extreme, 
which  some  in  France  and  Italy  had  before  gone  into.  And  about 
this  time  it  was  that  the  learned  Herbert  began  to  write  in  favour  of 
Deism  :  Of  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  afterwards. 

After  the  restoration,  things  were  so  far  from  being  mended,  that 
they  grew  worse.  Lewdness  and  Atheism  were  encouraged  at  the 
court,  which  now  looked  like  a  Httle  Bodom.  The  clergy  turned  no 
less  scandalous,  if  not  more  so  than  before.  Impiety  was,  as  it 
■were,  publicly  and  with  applause  acted  and  taught  on  the  stage,  and 
all  serious  religion  was  there  exposed  and  ridiculed.  Yea,  the  pul- 
pits of  many  became  theatres,  wherci.'pon  men  assumed  the  boldness 
to  ridicule  serious  Godliness,  and  the  gravest  matters  of  religion  ; 
such  as  communion  with  God,  confession  of  sin,  prayer  by  the  Spi- 
rit, and  the  wliole  work  of  converryion.  Controversial  writings  irere 
multiplied,  and  in  tlicm  grave  and  serious  truths  were  handled  in  a 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        51 

jocular  way.     The  scriptuses  were  burlesqued  ;  and  the  most  im- 
portant truths,  (under  pretence  of  exposing  the  Dissenters,  to  the 
great  grief  of  all  good  men  among  them,  and  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
land,) were  treated  with  contempt  and  scorn.      The  pulpits  were 
again  prostituted  to  state  designs  and  doctrines  ;    and  the  gre^it 
truths  oftlie  gospel,  in  reference  to  man^s  misery,  and  his  iccovery 
by  Jesus  Christ,  were  entirely  neglected  by  many  ;  and  discourses 
of  morality  came  in  their  place,  I  mean  a  morality  that  has  no  respect 
to  Christ  as  its  end,  author,  and  ike  ground  of  its  acceptance  with 
God  which  is  plain  heathenism.     The  soberer,  and  the  better  part 
were  traduced  as  enthusiastical,  disloyal  hypocrites,  and  I  know  not 
what.     And  sometimes  they  on  the  other  hand,  in  their  own  de- 
fence, were  constrained  to  lay  open  the  impiety,  atheism,  and  blas- 
phemous boldnes  of  their  traducers  in  their  way  of  management  of 
divine  things.     And  while  matters  were  thus  carried  betwixt  them, 
careless  and  indifferent  men,  especially  of  the  better  and  most  con- 
siderable quality,  being  debauched  in  their  practice,  by  the  licen- 
tiousness of  the  court,   the  immorality  and  looseness  of  the  stage, 
•were  willing  to  conform  their  principles  to  their  practice  ;  for  which 
this  state  of  things   gave  them  a  favourable  occasion  and  plausible 
pretences-      Men  whose  walk  and  way  looked  hke  any  thing  of  a 
real  regard  to  religion,  they  heard  so  often   traduced  as  hypocrites, 
fanatics,  and  I  know  not  what,  that  they  were  easily  induced  to  be- 
lieve them  to  be  such.      They  who  taught  them  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  by  the  liberty  they  assumed  in  practice,  convinced  these  gen- 
tlemen, that  whatever  their  profession  was,  yet  they  believed  no- 
thing about  religion  themselves;  and  therefore  it  was  easy  to  infer  that 
all  was  but  a  cheat.     Besides,  the  Popish  party,  who  were  sufficient- 
ly encouraged,  while  the  sober  Dissenters  of  the  Protestant  persua- 
sion were  cruelly  persecuted,  made  it  their  business  to  promote  this 
unsettledness  in  matters  of  religion.      They  found  themselves  una- 
ble to  stand  their  ground  in  wa}^  of  fair  debate,  and  therefore  they 
craftily  set  themselves  rather  to  shake  others  in  their  faith,  than  di- 
rectly to  press  them  to  a  compliance  with  their  own  sentiments. 
And  it  is  well  known  they  wrote  many  books  full  of  sophistry,  plaii>- 
ly  levelling  at  this,  to  bring  men  to  believe  nothing;  as  well  know- 
ing, that  if  they  were  once  brought  there,  they  would  soon  be 
brought  to  believe  any  thing  in  matters  of  religion. 

On  these  and  the  like  occasions  and  pretences,  arose  this  defec- 
tion from  the  gospel,  which  has  been  nourishsd  by  many  of  the 
same  things  which  first  gave  it  birth,  till  it  is  grown  to  such  strength, 
as  fills  all  well-wishers  to  the  interest  of  religion  with  just  fears  as  to 
the  issue. 

Nor  was  it  any  wonder  that  these  pretences  should  take,  (especial- 
ly with  persons  of  liberal  education  and  parts,  who  only  were  capable 
of  observing  those  faults  which  gaxci'cwsbii  fyr  them,)  since  the 


52  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

generality  were  prepared  for,  and  inclined  to  such  a  defection,  by  s 
long  continuance  under  the  external  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  with- 
out any  experience  of  its  power,  the  prevalent  love  of  lust,  that 
makes  men  impatient  of  any  thing  that  may  have  the  least  tenden- 
cy to  restrain  them  from  pursuing  the  gratification  thereof ;  to 
which  we  may  add  the  natural  enmity  of  the  mind  of  man  against 
the  mystery  of  the  gospel. 

There  was  another  thing  which  at  this  time  had  no  small  influ- 
ence— the  philosophical  writings  of  Mr.  Hobbs,  Spinoza,  and  some 
others  of  the  same  kidney,  got,  one  way  or  other,  a  great  vogue 
amongst  our  young  gentry  and  students,  whereby  many  were  poi- 
soned with  principles  destructive  of  all  true  religion  and  morality. 

By  those  and  the  like  means,  things  are  now  come  to  that  pass, 
that  not  a  few  have  been  bold  to  avow  their  apostacy  from  the 
christian  religion,  not  only  in  conversation,  but  in  print.  They 
disown  the  name  of  Christ,  call  themselves  Deists,  and  glory  in 
that  name.  They  have  published  many  writings  reflecting  on  the 
Bcriptures,  and  justifying  themselves  in  rejecting  them. 

And  we  have  just  reason  to  suspect,  that,  besides  those  who  do 
avow  their  principles,  who  are  perhaps  as  numerous  in  these  lands 
as  any  where  else,  there  are  many,  who  yet  are  ashamed  to  speak 
it  out,  who  bear  them  good-will,  and  who  want  only  a  little  time 
more  to  harden  themselves  against  the  odium  that  this  way  goes 
imder,  and  a  fair  occasion  of  throwing  off  the  mask,  which  they  yet 
think  meet  to  retain.     Of  this  vre  have  many  indications. 

Many  have  assumed  an  unaccountable  boldness  in  treating  things 
sacred  and  serious  too  freely  in  writing  and  conversation.  They 
make  bold  to  jest  upon  the  scriptures,  and  upon  every  occasion  to 
traverse  them.  When  once  men  have  gone  this  length,  the  vene- 
ration due  to  that  blessed  book  is  gone,  and  they  are  in  a  fair  way 
to  reject  it. 

Others  have  made  great  advances  to  this  defection,  by  dissemi- 
nating and  entertaining  reproaches  against  a  standing  ministry.  It  is 
known  what  contempt  has  been  cast  upon  this  order  of  men,  whom 
God  hath  entrusted  with  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  who,  by  of- 
lice,  are  obliged  to  maintain  its  honor.  If  this  order  of  men  fall  un- 
rler  that  general  contempt,  which  some  do  their  utmost  to  bring 
them  to,  religion  cannot  long  maintain  its  station  among  us.  When 
the  principal  means  of  the  Lord's  appointment  are  laid  aside,  or 
rendered  useless,  no  other  means  will  avail. 

And  hereon,  further,  there  follows  a  neglect  of  attendance  on 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  which  the  Lord  has  appointed  for  the  edi- 
fication of  the  church,  and  establishing  people  in  the  faith  of  the 
truth  he  has  revealed  to  us  therein.  When  this  once  begins  to  be 
neglected,  men  will  goon  turn  Bceptical  and  unconcerned  about  re^ 
ligioa. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        53 

And  further,  it  is  very  observable,  that  many  are  strengthened 
in  this  neglect,  by  principles  calculated  for  this  purpose ;  while  the 
whole  efficacy  of  preaching  is  made  to  depend,  not  on  the  blessiiig 
of  Christ,  whose  institution  it  is,  or  the  infiiiences  of  his  spirit, 
which  he  has  promised  for  setting  it  home  on  the  hearers  for  their 
conviction,  conversion  and  edification — but  on  the  abilities  and  ad- 
dress of  the  preachers.  It  is  natural  to  conclude,  that  it  is  better 
to  stay  at  home  and  read  some  book,  than  to  go  to  hear  a  sermon, 
if  the  preacher  iu  not  of  very  uncommon  abilities  :  Which  is  a  prin- 
ciple avowed  by  many,  and  their  practice  suits  their  principles. 

Besides,  which  is  the  true  spring  of  the  former,  I  am  afraid  igno* 
ranee  of  the  nature  ofrevealed  religion,  the  design  of  its  institutions, 
and  all  its  principal  concerns,  is  become  more  common  than  is  usu- 
ally observed,  even  amongst  men  of  liberal  education  and  the  best 
quality.  And  hence  maiiy  of  them  entertain  notions  inconsistent 
with  their  own  religion,  at  first  out  of  ignorance,  aud  afterwards 
think  themselves  in  honor  engaged  to  defend  them,  although  de- 
structive to  the  religion  they  profess. 

Add  to  all  this,  that  profanity  in  practice  has,  like  a  deluge,  over- 
spread the  lands.  And  where  this  once  takes  place,  love  to  sin  ne- 
ver fails  to  engage  men  to  those  principles,  which  may  countenance 
them  in  the  courses  they  love,  and  design  to  cleave  to. 

This  seems  plainly  to  be  the  state  of  matters  with  us  at  present. 
And  we  see  but  little  appearance  of  any  redress.  The  infection 
spreads,  and  many  are  daily  carried  off  by  it,  both  in  England  and 
Scotland.  Though  it  must  be  owned  that  Scotland,  as  yet,  is  less 
tainted  with  that  poison  :  but  those  of  this  nation  have  no  reason  to 
be  secure,  since  many  are  infected,  and  more  are  in  a  forwardness 
to  it  than  is  commonly  thought. 

Having  given  this  short,  but  I  conceive,  true  account  of  the  rise 
and  growth  of  Deism,  it  now  remains  that  we  consider,  what  these 
principles  are  which  they  maintain.  The  Deists,  although  they  are 
not  perfectly  one  among  themselves,  yet  do  agree  in  two  things  : — 
1.  They  all  reject  rei-'ea/ef?  religion,  and  plainly  maintain  that  all 
pretences  to  revelation  are  vain,  cheat  and  imposture.  2.  They 
all  maintain  thatnatwal  religion  is  sufficient  to  answer  all  the  great 
ends  of  religion,  and  the  only  rule  whereby  all  our  religious  practices 
are  to  be  squared.  The  first  of  tJaese  assertions  only  tells  what 
their  religion  is  not,  and  expresses  their  opposition  to  adl  revelation, 
particularly  to  Christianity ;  which  has  been  v/orthily  defended  and 
asserted  against  all  their  objections  by  many  of  late,  and  I  shall  not 
much  insist  in  adding  to  what  they  have  written  to  such  excellent 
purpose.  The  second  tells  us  what  their  religion  is  ;  and  it  is  this 
we  chiefly  design  in  the  following  papers  to  debate  with  them. — 
They  have  long  been  upon  the  offensive  part,  which  is  more  easy ; 
we  design  now  to  put  them  upon  the  defensive. 


54  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

They  who  call  themselves  Deists,  although  they  thus  far  agree, 
yet  are  not  all  of  one  sort.  I  find  them  by  one  of  their  own  num- 
ber, classed  into  two  sorts,  mortal  and  imynoital.* 

The  immortal  are  they  who  maintain  a  future  state.  The  mortal, 
they  who  demj  one.  It  is  m  ith  the^irsf  we  are  principally  concern- 
ed ;  yet  I  shall  in  the  subsequent  chapter  ofler  a  few  things  with  re- 
spect to  the  mortal  deists.  And  in  what  I  have  to  say  of  them  I 
ehall  be  very  short ;  because  I  conceive,  what  has  already  been  offer* 
cd  in  the  introduction,  against  this  sort  of  men,  might  almost  su- 
persede any  further  discourse  about  them. 


CHAP.     II. 

Mortal  Deists  who,  and  what  Judgment  to  be  made  of  them  and 
their  sentiments. 

THE  mortal  Deists,  who  also  are  called  nominal  Deists,  deny- 
ing a  future  state,  are,  in  effect,  mere  Atheists.  This  perhaps 
some  may  think  a  harsh  judgment ;  but  yet  it  is  such  as  the  Deists 
themselves,  who  are  on  the  other  side,  will  allow. 

One  who  owns  himself  a  Deist,  thus  expresses  his  mind — "  We 
"  do  believe,  that  there  is  an  infinitely  powerful,  wise  and  good 
"  God,  who  superintends  the  actions  of  mankind,  in  order  to  retri- 
*•  bute  to  every  one  according  to  their  deserts :  Neither  are  we  to 
*'  boggle  at  this  creed  ;  for  if  we  do  not  stick  to  it,  we  ruin  the  foun- 
"  dation  of  all  human  happiness,  and  are  in  effect  no  better  thaa 
'•  mere  Atheists."t 

A  further  account  of  this  sort  of  men  we  have  given  us  by  one, 
whom  any  may  judge  capable  enough  for  it,  who  considers  his  way 
of  writing,  and  the  account  he  gives  of  himself  "  I  have  observed 
"  some,"  says  he,  "  who  pretend  themselves  Deists,  that  they  are 
*'  men  of  loose  and  sensual  lives  ;  and  I  make  no  wonder  that  they 
*'  dislike  the  christian  doctrine  of  seU-denial,  and  the  severe  threat- 
*'  enings  against  wilful  sinners.  You  may  be  sure  they  will  not  al- 
*'  ledge  this  reason  :  But  having  read  Spinoza  aiul  Hobbs,  and  be- 
*'  ing  taught  to  laugh  at  the  story  of  Balaam's  ass,  and  Sampson's 
"  locks,  they  proceed  to  ridicule  the  reality  of  all  miracles  and  reve- 
'<  lation.  I  have  conversed  with  several  of  this  temperi.'but  could 
*'  never  get  any  of  them  serious  enough  to  debate  the  reality  of  re- 
*'  Kgion — but  a  witty  jest,  and  t'other  glass,  puts  an  end  to  allfur- 


*  Oracles  of  Reason,  page  99. 
i  Letter  to  the  Deists,  pag-c  125. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        55 

««  ther  consideration."*      These  are  mere  sceptics  and  practical 
Atheists,  rather  than  real  Deists. 

Now,  it  is  to  no  purpose  to  debate  with  men  of  this  temper.  If 
they  will  Ksten  to  arguments,  many  have  said  enough,  if  not  to 
convince  them,  (for  I  know  it  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  convince 
some  men,)  yet  to  stop  their  mouths  ;  and  therefore  I  shall  not  of- 
fer any  arguments — only  I  shall  lay  down  a  few  clear  principles, 
and  from  them  draw  an  inference  or  two,  which  will  make  it  evident, 
wliat  judgment  we  are  to  make  of  this  sort  of  men. 

The  principles  I  take  for  Incontrovertible  are  these  which  follow  j 
1.  He  deserves  not  the  name  of  a  man  who  acts  not  rationally  ; 
knowing  what  he  does,  and  to  what  end.  2.  No  action  which  con- 
tributes not,  at  least  in  appearance,  to  man's  happiness  is  worthy 
of  him.  3.  The  happiness  of  a  present  Hfe,  which  is  all  that  these 
gentlemen  allow,  consists  in  the  enjoyments  of  things  agreeable  to 
our  nature,  and  freedom  from  those  that  are  noisome  to  it.  4.  Man's 
nature  is  such,  that  his  felicity  depends  not  only  on  these  things, 
which  at  present  he  has,  or  wants  ;  but  likewise  on  what  is  past, 
and  what  is  future.  A  prospect  of  the  one,  and  a  reflection  on  the 
other,  according  as  they  are  more  or  less  agreeable,  exceedingly  in- 
creases his  pleasure  or  pain.  5.  The  hopes  of  obtaining  hereafter 
the  good  we  at  present  want,  and  of  being  freed  from  evils  v/e  suffer 
by,  mightily  enhances  the  pleasure  of  what  we  possess,  and  allays 
the  trouble  that  arises  from  incumbent  evils.  6.  So  strong  is  the 
desire  every  one  finds  in  himself  of  a  continuation  in  being,  as  can- 
not choose  but  render  the  tlioughts  of  annihilation  very  terrible 
and  irksome.  7.  The  practice  o( virtue  as  it  is  the  most  probable 
means  of  aUdimn^future  happiness,  if  any  such  state  be,  so  it  h 
that  which  tends  most  to  perfect  and  advance  man's  nature  ;  and 
so  must  give  the  most  solid  and  durable  pleasure,  even  here  in  this 
life.  8.  It  is  malicious  to  do  what  tends  to  the  obstructing  ano- 
ther's happiness,  when  it  cannot  further  one's  oivn.  Few  men  wUi 
question  any  of  these,  and  if  any  do,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  debate 
with  him.     Now  from  these  we  may  see, 

1,  It  would  contribute  much  to  those  gentlemen's  77J'f5P??^/e/tc<7?/ 
to  believe,  (bo  it  true  or  false)  that  there  is  n  future  state  of  happi- 
ness, since  the  hopes  of  immutable  and  endless  bliss  would  be  a  no- 
table antidote  against  the  Hneasiness  of  mind  that  arises,  not  only 
from  iucnmbcnt  evils,  but  also  from  those  we  fear,  and  the  incon- 
stancy of  our  short-lived  enjoyments. 

2.  Tlie  generalily  of  mankind,  especially  where  Christianity  ob- 
tains, being  already  possessed  of  the  prospect  o( future  happiness, 
which  supports  them  under  present  evils,  arms  them  against  the 
troublesome  reflections  on  past  troubles,  and  fears  of  the  future; 

*  Growth  of  Deism,  page  5. 


S6  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

and  moreover  animates  them  in  the  practice  of  these  actiong  where- 
by not  only  their  own  good,  but  that  of  the  societies  wherein  they 
live,  is  signally  promoted ;  all  attempts  to  rob  them  of  this  hope  are 
highly  malicious,  and  import  no  less  than  a  conspiracy  against  the 
happiness  of  mankind,  and  the  good  of  the  society  wherein  they 
Kve  :  And  therefore  we  may  say  assuredly,  that  as  those  mortal 
Deists  are  much  incommoded  by  their  own  opinion  ;  so  their  at- 
tempts for  its  propagation,  must  be  looked  on  as  proceeding  from 
BO  good  design  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 

Here  perliaps  some  of  them  may  say,  that  this  opinion  tends  to 
liberate  a  great  part  of  mankind  from  the  disquieting  fears  o{  future 
misery. 

To  this  I  answer,  1 .  I  believe  it  true,  that  their  fears  of  future 
misery  are  uneasy  to  them ;  or  they  have  but  little  hope  of  future 
felicity.  Their  way  of  living  allows  them  none.  But  these  fears 
proceed  from  consciousness  of  guilt,  and  are  the  genuine  result  of  ac- 
tions, equally  destructive  to  the  actors,  and  the  interest  of  the  rest 
of  mankind.  2.  These  fears  have  their  use,  and  serve  to  deter 
from  such  evils  as  are  ruining  to  the  persons  who  commit  them,  and 
to  human  society.  3.  While  this  opinion  liberates  a  few  of  the 
worst  of  men,  from  these  fears,  which  are  a  part  of  the  just  punish- 
ment of  their  villainies,  and  emboldens  them  to  run  on  in  those  evils 
ivhich  ruin  themselves  and  others,  it  dispirits  and  discourages  the 
only  useful  part  of  mankind,  by  filling  them  with  dismal  thoughts  of 
Gnnihilation.  4.  Nor  can  all  that  the  Deists  are  able  to  do,  lib- 
erate themselves  or  mankind  from  those  fears.  The  utmost  that 
they  can  pretend,  with  any  shew  of  reason,  is,  that  we  have  not 
ground  to  believe  such  a  state.  Will  this  make  us  sure  that  there 
is  none  ?  But  of  this  we  have  said  enough  in  the  introduction. 

By  what  has  been  said  it  is  evident,  what  judgment  we  are  to 
make  of  this  sort  of  Deists.  Their  lives,  writings  and  death,  shew 
them  to  be  mere  Atheists. 

Vaninus^  when  first  he  appeared  and  wrote  his  Aniphltheafrum 
Providentim  Divintp,  set  out  for  such  an  one  that  believed  a  God. 
But  at  length  spoke  out  plainly  that  he  believed  nonCy  and  was  de- 
servedly burnt  for  Atheism  at  Thoulouse,  April  9,  1619.  He 
confessed  there  were  twelve  of  them  that  parted  in  company  from 
Naples  to  teach  their  doctrine  in  all  the  provinces  of  Europe.* 

Uriel  Accost  a  wrote  for  this  opinion,  as  himself  tells  us  in  his 
Examplar  Vitcc  Humance,  which  is  subjoined  to /iimftitr^-'s  con- 
ference with  Orobius  the  Jew.f  His  last  action  tells  us  what  man 
he  was.  After  he  had  made  a  vain  attempt  to  shoot  his  brother,  he 
discharged  a  pistol  into  his  own  breast.     This  fell  out  about  the 

*  See  Great  Geographical  Dictionary. 

f  Limburgi  Prselatio  and  Bespon*.    Vrileus  Accosts  Llbro. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        57 

twentieth  or  thirtieth  year  of  the  last  century.     So  they  livBy  and 
so  they  die. 

Were  this  our  desiji^n,  or  if  we  saw  any  need  of  it,  we  might  give 
such  an  account  of  the  principles,  practices,  and  tragical  exits  of 
not  a  few  of  this  sort  of  persons,  as  would  be  suJQScient  to  deter  the 
sober  from  following  them.  But  what  has  been  said  is  sufficient  to 
discover  the  destructive  tendency  of  their  pnme  opinion.  And 
further  we  shall  not  concern  ourselves  with  them,  but  ^go  on  to 
that  which  is  mainly  intended  in  this  discourse.  '  ' 


CHAP.    HI. 

Mlierein  the  controversy  hetwixt  us  and  the  Immortal  Deists  is  stated 

and  cleared. 

THE  immortal  Deists  who  own  a  future  state^  are  the  only 
persons  with  whom  it  is  worth  while  to  dispute  this  point  about  the 
siifficiency  of  natural  religion.  Before  we  offer  any  arguments  on 
this  head,  it  is  necessary  we  state  the  question  clearly  ;  and  it  is 
the  more  necessary,  that  none  of  the  Deists  have  had  the  courage 
or  honesty  to  do  it*  And  here  in  the  entry  Ave  shall  lay  down  some 
things,  which  we  think  are  not  to  be  controverted  on  this  occasion. 
And  we  shall,  after  these  concessions  are  made,  inquire  what  stil! 
remains  in  debate, 

1.  We  look  on  it  as  certain,  that  all  the  world,  in  all  ages,  hatli 
been  possessed  of  some  notion  of  a  God,  of  some  power  above 
them,  on  whom,  in  more  or  less,  they  did  depend ;  and  to  whom 
on  this  account  some  respect  is  due.  This  Heathens  have  observ- 
ed. Cicero^  amongst  others,  hath  long  since  told  us,  "  That 
*'  there  is  no  nation  so  barbarous  that  owns  not  some  God,  that  has 
**  not  some  anticipations  or  impressions  from  nature,  of  a  God."^ 
Nor  is  this  any  more,  than  what  we  are  told,  Rom.  i.  19,  20,  &c. 
that  the  Gentiles  have  some  notions  of  truth  concerning  God,  which 
they  hold  in  unrighteotisness  ;  that  God,  partly  by  erecting  a  tri- 
bunal in  their  own  breasts,  which  they  cannot  decline,  though  they 
never  so  much  would,  and  partly  by  presenting  to  their  eyes  those 
visible  works  that  bear  a  lively  impress  of  his  invisible  power  and 
Godhead^  hath,  as  it  were,  forced  upon  them  the  knowledge  of  some 
part  of  that,  which  the  apostle  calls  vv«s-ov  ry  ica,  or  that  which 
moi/  be  known  of  God.  Whence  they  ail  in  some  measure  knew 
God,  though  they  glorified  him  not  as  God. 

*  Cicero  de  Natura  Deorum,  Lib.  1. 


58  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

The  stories  some  have  told  us  of  nations  that  have  no  notion  of  a 
God,  upon  search  are  found  false.  And  for  some  lewd  persons, 
who  have  pretended  to  a  settled  persuasion,  they  are  not  to  be  cre- 
dited. We  have  suflScient  reason  to  look  on  them  as  liars,  or  at 
least,  not  admit  them  witnesses  in  this  case. 

2.  I  do  think  that  the  knowledge  of  some  of  the  more  obvious 
laws  of  nature,  and  their  obligation,  hath  universally  obtained.* — 
•  The  Gentiles,  all  of  them,  do  by  nature  (hose  things,  that  is,  the 
material  part  of  those  duties,  which  the  law  of  nature  enjoins,  which 
shews  the  work  of  the  law,  or  some  part  of  it  at  least,  to  he  written 
in  their  hearts,  since  they  -  do  some  things  it  enjoins.  I  do  not 
think  that  this  writing  of  the  latv  imports  innate  ideas,  or  innate 
actual  knowledge,  which  Mr.  Locke  hath  been  at  so  much  pains  to 
disprove,!  with  what  success  I  inquire  not  now.  Some  think,  that 
while  he  grants  the  self-evidence  of  a  natural  propensifi/  of  our 
thoughts  toward  some  notions,  which  others  call  innate,  he  grants 
all  that  the  more  judicious  intend  by  that  expression.  Other.* 
think  that  Mr.  Locke's  arguments  conclude  only  the  improbability 
of  innate  ideas,  and  that  they  are  to  be  rejected,^  rather  for  want  of 
evidence  for  them,  than  for  the  strength  of  what  is  said  against 
them.J  But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  neither  the  apostle's 
scope  nor  words  oblige  us  to  maintain  thenio  What  is  intended 
may  be  reduced  to  two  assertions,  viz.  That  men  are  born  with 
such  faculties,  which  cannot,  after  they  are  capable  of  exercising 
them,  but  admit  the  obligation  and  binding  force  of  some,  at  least, 
ef  the  laws  of  nature,  when  they  are  fairly  offered  to  their  thoughts; 
and,  that  man  is  so  stated,  that  he  cannot  miss  occasions  of  think- 
ing of,  or  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  those  laws  of  nature. 

"  Homines  nasci  cognitione  aliqua  Dei  instrnctos,  haud  dicimus  : 
*'  Nullam  omnino  habent,.  sed  vi  cognoseendi  dicimus ;  neque  ita 
"  naturaliter  eognoscunt  atque  sentiunt,  insitam  potentiam  Deum 
"  cognoscendi,  ad  culhim  ejus  aliquo  modo  praestandiim,  stimulan- 
"  tem,  sponte  se  in  adultis  rationis  eompotibus,  non  minus  certo  et 
"  necessai-fo  quam  ipsum  ratiocinari,  exerturam^  unumquemque 
"  retinere,  ratio  nulla  est  car  opinemur  cum  sentiamus,  "  says  the^ 
learned  Dr..  Osven.ll 


*  I  inquire  not  whether  they  were  acquainted  with   the  proper  and  true 
gioiinds  of  the  oblig:ition  of  those  laws  they  owned  obligatory. 

t  Locke's  Fssay  on  Human  Understanding-,  Book  1,  Ch  4,  §  11. 

i  Becconsall  of  Nat.  I^elig.  Gh.  6.  ^  1,  2. 

II  Theoiogumcn.  Lib.  1.  Cap.  5.  Par.  2. — "  We  do  not  say  that  men  are 
"  born  with  any  actual  knowledge  of  God,  as  they  have  no  knowledge  at  all 
"  when  they  are  born  ;  but  we  say  that  tliey  are  born  witli  a  capacity  of  know- 
"  ing-  him,  and  tiiut  they  do -not  so  naturally  know  as  they  feel  this  implanted 
"  qapacity  of  knowing  God,  which  stirs  them  up  to  worship  him  in  some  man- 
"  ncr.  And  that  this  capacity  will  no  less  naturally  and  spc>ntaneously  exert. 
"•  iiself  in  all  adults  tiiai  are  jjossc'ssed  of  reason,  than  tli:>t  of  reasoning  itself, 
"  there  is  no  reason  v.hy  \,x  should  deliver  as  an  opiniosi,  ui  \vs  feel  it  to  be 
"  the  case.'' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        59 

3.  It  is  unquestionable,  and  has  been  sufficiently  attested  by  the 
nations,  and  even  by  some  of  the  worst  of  them,  that  man  has  a 
consciencCf  that  sometimes  drags  the  greatest  and  most  obstinate  of- 
fenders to  it3  tribunal,  in  their  own  breasts,  accuses  them,  con- 
demns them,  and  in  some  sort  executes  the  sentence  against  them, 
for  their  counteracting  known  duty,  how  little  soever  they  know, 
A  Heathen  poet  could  say, 

-Prima  est  hcBc  iiltio,  quod  se 


Judice,  nemo  nocens  absolvitiiry  vAvproha  quamvis 
Gratia fallacis  prcetoris  vicerit  uniam.'* 

4.  We  own  that  those  laws  of  nature,  which  are  of  absolute  ne» 
cessity  to  the  support  of  government  and  order  in  the  world,  and 
the  maintenance  of  human  society,  are,  in  a  good  measure,  knowa- 
ble  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  have  been  generally  known. 

5.  We  willingly  admit  that,  what  by  tradition,  and  what  by  the 
improvement  of  nature's  fight,  many  of  the  wiser  Heathens  have 
come  to  know,  and  express  many  things  excellently,  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  God,  man's  duty,  the  coiTuption  of  nature,  a  future  state, 
&c.  and  some  of  them  have  Hved  nearer  up  to  the  knowledge  that 
they  had  than  others  :  For  which  they  are  Iiighly  to  be  commond-- 
ed,  and  I  do  not  grudge  them  their  praise. 

6.  I  look  on  it  as  certain,  that  the  light  of  nature,  had  it  been 
duly  improven,  might  have  carried  them  In  these  things,  and  others 
of  the  like  nature,  further  than  ever  any  went. 

But  after  all  these  things  are  granted,  the  question  concerning 
the  suffiricmy  of  natural  religion,  remains  untouched. 

For  clearing  this,  it  is  further  to  be  observed,  that,  when  wc 
speak  of  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion,  or  tltose  notices  of  God, 
and  the  way  of  worshipping  him,  which  are  attainable  by  the  mere 
light  of  nature,  without  revelation,  we  consider  itasawe««  in  order 
to  some  end.  For  by  sufficiency  is  meant,  that  aptitvdv  of  a  mean 
for  compassing  some  eiid,  tliat  infers  a  nece^'sarj'  connection  ]>et%vixt 
the  due  use,  that  is,  such  an  use  of  the  mean,  as  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  said  to  be  sufficient,  is  capable  to  make  of  it,  and  the  attain- 
ment of  the  end. 

Now  natural  religion,  under  tliis  consideration,  may  be  asserted 
sufficient  or  not,  according  as  it  is  looked  at  with  respect  to  one 
end,  or  another  :  For  it  is  useful  to  several  purposes,  and  Ins  a  re- 
spect to  several  ends. 

1.  It  may  be  considered  with  respect  to  hvman  socid>>,  upon 
which  religion  has  a  considerable  influence.      "There   could  never 


P". 


*  "  This  is  the  first  part  of  the  ])unis1imenl,  that  every  guilty  person  is  cor.- 
"  tiemnecl  by  himself,  although  wicked  interest  should  have  overcome  tiic  in- 
"  tegrityofhisjudg-e." 


CO  AN  INQTJIRT  INTO  THE 

«  possibly  be  any  government  settled  amongst  Atheists,  or  those 
*'  who  pay  no  respect  to  a  Deity.  Remove  God  once  out  of  Hea- 
*'  ven,  and  there  will  never  be  any  gods  upon  earth.  If  man's  na- 
*'  ture  had  not  something  of  subjection  in  it  to  a  Supreme  Being 
**  above  him,  and  inherent  principles  obliging  him  how  to  behave 
*'  himself  toward  God,  and  toward  the  rest  of  the  world,  govern*- 
*'  ment  could  have  never  been  introduced,  nor  thought  of.  Nor 
*'  can  there  be  the  least  mutual  security  between  governors  and 
*'  governed,  where  no  God  is  admitted.  For  it  is  an  acknowledging 
*<  of  God,  in  his  supreme  judgment  over  the  world,  that  is  the 
*'  ground  of  an  oath;  and  upon  which  the  validity  of  all  human  en- 
*'  gagements  do  depend,"  says  an  excellent  person.^  And  the 
famed  Cicero  expresses  himself  very  fully  to  the  same  purpose. 
Speaking  of  religion  and  piety,  he  says — Quibiis  sublatis,  pertiir' 
halio  vitae  sequiturt  Sc  ma^na  confasio,  atqne  hand  scio^  an  pietate 
adversus  Deossuhlata,  fides  diam.^  8r  societas  humani  generis,  <§• 
una  excellentissima  virtUy  justitia  tollatur.^  If  the  qnestion  con- 
cerned this  end,  we  might  own  natural  religion  some  way  sufficient 
to  be  a  foundation  for  human  society,  and  some  order  and  govern- 
ment in  the  world  :  For  it  is  in  fact  evident,  that  where  revelation 
has  been  wanting,  there  have  been  several  well-formed  governments. 
Though  still  it  must  be  said,  that  they  wer6  obliged  to  tradition  for 
many  things  that  were  of  use,  and  to  l)ave  recourse  to  pretended  re- 
velation, where  the  real  was  wanting.  J  Which  shews  revelation 
recessary,  if  not  tothefteing*,  yet  to  the  rvell-heing  oi%oc\eiy. 

2.  Natural  religion  may  be  considered  in  its  subserviency  to  God's 
moral  government  of  the  world  ;  and  with  respect  to  this,  it  has 
several  considerable  uses,  that  I  cannot  enter  upon  the  detail  of.  It 
is  the  measure  of  God's  judicial  proceedings,  v.'ith  respect  to  those 
of  mankind  who  want  revelation  ;  and  as  to  this,  there  is  one  thing 
that  is  usually  observed,  thai  it  is  sufficient  tojustifi/  God  in  pun^ 
ishing  sinners,.  That  God  sometimes,  even  here  in  time,  punishes 
ofTe-xlers,  and,  by  the  forebodings  of  their  consciences,  gives  them 
dreadful  presages  of  a  progress  in  his  severity  against  them,  after 
this  life,  cannot  well  be  denied.  Now  certainly  there  must  be 
some  measure,  whereby  God  proceeds  in  this  matter.  Where  there, 
is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression.  Punishments  cannot  be  in- 
flicted, but  for  the  transgression,  and  according  to  the  tenor  of  a  law. 
And  this  law,  if  it  is  holy,  just,  and  good  in  its  precepts,  and  equal 


*  See  Ch.  "VVolseley's  Unreas.  of  Atheism,  pag'e  152,  Sec. 

■\  DeNatura  Deorum,  Lib.  1-  mihi.  page  5. — "  Which  being'  taken  away,  a 
"  threat  disorder  and  confusion  in  life  must  follow  ;.  and  I  know  not  whether, 
*'  after  piety  to  the  God's  is  taken  away,  trutli  and  the  social  affections,  and 
"justice,  the  most  excellent  of  the  virtues,  would  riot  at  the  same  tiaie  be 
•'  tiiken  away." 

4  See  Amyrald  on  Relig.  Part  2.  Cap.  8. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        61 

In  its  sajidion,  is  not  only  the  measure  whereby  the  governor  pro- 
ceeds in  punishing  offenders ;  but  that  which  justifies  him  in  the 
punishment  of  them.  It  is  needless  to  speak  of  the  grant  of  re^vards 
in  this  case  ;  because  with  respect  to  them,  not  only  justice  but 
grace  and  hounty  have  place,  which  are  not  restricted  to  any  such 
nice  measures,  in  the  dispensation  of  favours,  as  justice  is  in  the 
execution  of  punishments.  Now,  if  natural  religion  is  considered 
with  respect  to  this  end,  we  say  it  is  sufficient  to  justify  God,  and 
fully  clear  him  from  any  imputation  of  injustice  or  cruelty,  whatever 
punishments  he  may,  either  in  time  or  after  time,  inflict  upon  man- 
kind who  want  revelation.  There  are  none  of  them  come  to  age, 
who — 1.  Have  not  fallen  short  of  knowing  many  duties,  which  they 
might  have  known.  2.  Who  have  not  omitte«l  many  duties,  which 
they  knew  themselves  obliged  to.  And  3.  Who  have  not  done 
what  they  knew  they  ought  not  to  have  done,  and  might  have  for- 
born.  If  these  three  are  made  out,  as  no  doubt  they  may  be  against 
all  men,  I  do  not  see  Avhat  reason  any  will  have  to  implead  God  ei- 
ther of  hardship  or  injustice. 

There  are  I  know,  who  think  it  very  hard,  that  those  natural  no- 
tices of  God  and  religion  should  be  sufficient  to  justify  God  in  ad- 
judging those,  who  counteract  them,  to  future  and  eteriud  punish- 
ments, while  yet  such  an  attendance  to,  and  compliance  v/ith  them 
as  men  are  capable  of,  in  their  present  circumstances,  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  entitle  us  to  eternal  rewards. 

But  if,  in  this  matter,  any  injuKtice  is  charged  upon  God,  who 
shall  manage  the  plea  ?  Shall  they  who  transgress  and  contravene 
those  notices  do  it?  But  what  injustice  meet  they  with,  if  they  are 
condemned  for  not  knowing  what  they  might  have  known  ?  not  doing 
what  they  were  obliged  to  do,  and  were  able  to  do  ?  and  for  doing 
what  they  might  and  should  have  forborn  ?  If  all  these  may  be  laid 
to  their  charge,  though  there  were  no  more,  what  have  they  to  say 
for  themselves,  or  against  God  ?  They  surely  have  no  reason  to 
complain.  If  any  have  reason  to  complain,  it  mu?;t  be  they  who 
have  walked  up  to  the  natural  notices  of  God.  But  where  is  there 
any  such  ?  We  may  spare  our  vindication  till  such  an  one  be  found. 
Nor  is  it  easy  to  prove  that  man's  obedience  thougli  perfect,  must 
necessarily  entitle  to  eternal  felicity.  And  he  who  shall  undertake 
to  implead  God  of  injustice  upon  the  account  of  such  a  sentence,  as 
that  we  now  speak  of,  will  not  find  it  easy  to  make  good  hla  charge. 

Were  the  difficulty  thus  moulded,  that  it  h  hard  to  pretend  thiit 
those  natural  notices  of  God  are  sufficient  to  justify  God  in  coii- 
dejntiing  the  transgressors  of  them  to  f«iture  punishments,  while 
puiictual  compliance  with  them  is  not  sufilcient  to  save  those,  who 
yield  this  obedience,  from  those  punlslimejits,  which  the  contia- 
Tcners  are  liable  to  for  their  transgression — though  it  were  thus 
moulded,  it  would  be  a  hard  task  to  make  good  such  a  charge.    B:ii 


62  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

I  am  not  concerned  in  it  ;  nor  are  any,  who  judge  the  person?, 
■who  have  gone  farthest  in  this  compliance,  liable  upon  other  ac- 
counts ;  because  they  still  own  their  compliance  so  far  available  to 
them,  as  to  save  them  from  those  degrees  of  wrath,  which  deeper 
guilt  would  have  inferred. 

3.  Other  ends  there  are,  with  respect  to  which  natural  religion 
may  be  considered,  which  I  shall  pass  without  naming,  and  shall 
only  make  mention  of  that  which  we  are  concerned  in,  and  is  aimed 
at  in  the  present  controversy,  and  that  is,  the  future  happiness  of 
wan  in  the  enjoyment  of  God.  This  certainly  is  the  supreme  and 
ultimate  end  ofretifrion  Avith  respect  to  man  himself.  For  that  the 
glory  of  God  is  the  chi(f  end  absolnlely,  and  must,  in  all  respect, 
iave  the  preference,  I  place  bej^ond  debate. 

Now  it  is  as  to  this  end,  that  the  question  about  the  sufficiency  of 
natural  religion  is  principally  moved.  And  the  question,  in  short, 
amounts  to  this,  whether  the  notices  of  God  and  religion,  which  all 
men  by  the  light  of  nature  have,  or  at  least  by  the  mere  improve- 
ment of  their  natural  abilities  without  revelation,  may  have,  are 
sufficient  to  direct  them  in  the  way  to  eternal  blessedness,  satisfy 
them  that  such  a  state  is  attainable,  and  point  out  the  way  how  it  is 
to  be  attained  ;  and  whether  by  that  practical  compliance  with 
those  notices,  which  man  in  his  present  state  is  capable  of,  he  may 
certainly  attain  to  acceptance  witli  God,  please  him,  and  obtain 
tliis  eternal  happiness  in  the  <^?ijoyment  of  him  ?  The  Deists  are  for 
the  affirmative,  as  we  shall  afterwards  make  appear,  when  we  con- 
sider their  opinions  more  particularly. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  offer  arziiments,  it  will  be  needful  to 
branch  this  qiiestion  into  several  particulars  that  are  included  in  it, 
that  v,e  may  the  better  conceive  of,  and  take  up  the  iniport  of  it, 
and  hew  much  is  included  and  wrapt  up  in  tlii:i  assertion.  The 
lestion  winch  we  have  proposed  in  general,  may  be  turned  into 
^ive  subordinate  queries : 

'" by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  we  can  discover  an 

eterSl^^^^y^pincs,?,  and  know  tljat  this  h  attainable  1  Unless 
Ibis  is  donS^^Hbg  in  matters  of  religion  is  done.  It  is  impossible 
tlwt  nature's  hgm  can  give  any  directions  asjtep^jthe  means  of  at- 
taining future  happiness,  if  it  cannot  satisfy  Wtlitit  there  is  such 
a  state.  -J 

2.  Whether  men,  left  to  the  conduct  of  the  feere  light  of  nature^ 
can  certainly  discover  and  find  out  the  way  of  attaining  it  ?  that  is, 
whether,  by  the  light  of  nature,  we  canknow  and  find  out  all  f  hat  is 
required  of  us,  in  the  way  of  duty,  in  order  to  our  eternal  felicity  ? 
If  the  affirmative  is  chosen,  it  must  be  made  appear  by  nature's 
light,  what  duties  are  absolutely  necessary  to  this  purpose ;  that 
those  which  are  prescril^ed  are  indeed  dulses ;  and  that  thr  y  are  aft 
that  are  necessary  in  order  to  the  attainment  cf  the  end,  if  Uiey  ar6 


TRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        G3 

complied  withal.  Although  we  should  have  it  never  so  cleaily 
made  out,  that  there  is  a  future  state  of  happiness,  yet  if  we  are  left 
at  an  utter  loss  as  to  the  means  of  attaining  it,  we  are  no  better  for 
the  discovery. 

3.  Whether  nature's  light  gives  such  a  full  and  certain  discovery 
of  both  these  as  tlie  case  seems  to  require  ?  Considering  what  a  case 
man  at  present  is  in,  to  hope  for  an  eternity  of  happiness,  is  to  look  ve- 
ry high :  And  any  man,  Avho  in  his  present  circumstances,  shall  enter* 
tain  such  an  expectation,  on  mere  surmises,  suspicions  and  may-bees, 
may  be  reproached  by  the  world,  and  his  own  heart,  as  a  fool.  To 
keep  a  man  up  in  the  steady  impression,  and  expectation  of  so  great 
thing.s,  conjectures,  suppositions,  probabilities,  and  confused  gene- 
I  al  hints,  are  not  sufficient.  Again,  there  are  huge  difficulties  to  be 
huiTOOunted  in  tlie  way  to  this  blessedness,  which  are  obvious  and 
certain.  Sensible  losses  are  sometimes  to  be  sustained,  sensible 
pains  to  be  utsdergonc,  and  sensible  dangers  to  be  looked  in  the 
iacc.  Now  the  question  is,  whether  is  there  such  a  clear  and  cer- 
tain knowledge  of  these  attainable,  as  the  importance  of  the  case, 
the  stress  that  is  to  be  laid  on  them,  requires  ?  Certain  it  is,  it 
will  not  be  such  notices  as  mt)st  please  themselves  with,  that  will 
be  able  to  answer  this  end. 

4.  Whether  the  evidence  of  the  attainableness  of  a  future  state 
«f  happiness,  and  of  the  way  to  it,  is  such  as  suits  the  capacities  of 
all  concerned  ?  Every  man  has  a  concernment  in  this  matter. 
The  Deists  inquire  after  a  religion  that  is  able  to  save  all,  whereof 
every  man,  if  he  but  please,  may  have  the  eternal  advantage.  Now 
then  the  question  is,  whether  the  case  is  so  stated,  as  that  every 
man,  who  is  in  earnest,  if  he  has  but  the  use  of  reason,  however 
fthallow  his  capacity  is,  how  great  soever  his  inevitable  entangle- 
ments  and  hinderances  from  close  application  are,  may  attain  to 
this  certainty  about  this  end,  and  the  Avay  to  it?  Fori-i  must  be  al- 
lowed that  theye  is  a  vast  difference  among  men  as  to  capacity. 
Men  are  no-  more  of  one  measure  in  point  of  the  reach  of  one,  wjiick 
another  may  easily  attain  to.  Now,  may  as  much  be  certainly 
known  by  the  meanest  capacity  as*  is  necessary  for  him  to  know  ? 
Again,  ail  men  have  not  alike  leisure.  That  may  be  impossible  to 
mc,  if  I  am  a  poor  nrxn,  obliged  to  work  hard  to  earn  aiy  own  and 
family's  bread,  which  would  not  be  so  if  I  hail  leisure  and  opportu- 
nity to  follow  my  studies.  Now^  if  these  discoveries^  both  as  to 
their  tnrtli,  certainty  and  suitablenes;-,  are  not  such  as  the  meanest, 
notwithstanding  any  inevitable  hinderances  he  may  be  under,  may 
reach,  thoy  will  not  answer  the  end, 

5.  Whether,  supposing  all  tlie  former,  every  man,  however  sur- 
rounded vv'ith  temptations,  and  inveigled  with  corrupt  inclinations,, 
or  other  hinderances,  which  ho  cannot  evitc,  is  yet  able,  without 
any  supply  of  siiperaatLiral  strengtli,  to  comply  go  far  wilha^thoifi 


64  AN  mauiRY  INTO  "The 

duties,  as  is  absolutely  needful  in  order  to  obtain  this  eternal  hap- 
piness ?  Whatever  our  knowledge  is,  we  are  not  the  better  for  it, 
unless  we  are  able  to  yield  a  practical  compliance. 

The  Deists  have  the  affirmative  of  all  these  questions  to  make 
good.  How  they  acquit  themselves  in  this,  we  shall  see  after- 
wards. The  task,  as  any  one  may  see,  is  sufficiently  difficult. 
And  I  do  not  know,  that  any  one  of  them  who  has  yet  wrote,  hath 
given  any  evidence  that  they  understood  the  state  of  the  question 
in  its  full  exte^kp  They  huddle  it  up  in  the  dark,  that  the  weak- 
ness of  their  pT-oof  may  not  appear.  And  perhaps  they  are  not 
willing  to  apply  their  thoughts  so  closely  to  the  subject,  as  is  re- 
quisite, in  order  to  take  up  the  true  state  of  the  controversy. 

The  more  remiss  and  careless  they  have  been  this  way,  we  had 
So  much  the  more  to  do  to  state  the  question  truly  betwixt  us  and 
them.  And  having  done  this,  we  shall  next  proceed  to  make  good 
our  part  of  it. 

A  negaiive  is  not  easily  proven,  which  puts  us  at  some  loss.  It 
lias  been  denied  that  it  can  in  some  cases  be  proven.  But  we  hope, 
in  this  case,  we  are  able  to  offer  such  reasons  as  will  justify  us  in 
holding  the  negative  in  this  debate.  And  we  shall  see  next  whe- 
ther they  are  able  to  demonstrate  the  q^rmaiive,  and  offer  as  good 
reasons  for  it,  as  we  shall  give  against  it.  And  it  is  but  reasonable 
they  should  offer  better,  in  a  matter  of  so  great  concern. 


CHAP.     lY. 

Proving  the  insujficlmci/  of  Natural  BAigion^  from  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  its  discoveries  of  a  Deity. 

THOUGH  it  belongs  to  the  asscrters  of  the  sufficiency  of  natu- 
ral religion,  to  justify  by  argument  their  assertion,  and  we  are  upon 
the  negative,  might  supersede  any  further  debate  until  such  time, 
as  we  see  how  they  can  acquit  themselves  here ;  yet  truth,  not 
triumph,  being  the  dei'jgn  of  our  c  ngaging  in  the  contest,  that  none 
may  think  we  are  without  reason  in  our  denial,  and  that  we  put 
them  upon  the  proof,  only  to  difficult  them,  we  shall  now  by  some 
arguments  endeavor  to  evince  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion. 

The  first  argument  I  shall  improve  to  this  purpose  is  deduced 
from  the  insufficiency  of  those  discoveries,  which  the  light  of  na- 
ture is  able  to  make  of  God.  Nothing  is  more  plain  than  this,  that 
religion  is  founded  upon  the  hionjJfdge  of  tlie  Deity  ;  and  that  our 
regard  for  him  will  be  answerable  to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  him. 

That  religion,  therefore,  which  is  defective  here,  is  lame  with  a 
witness  :  And  if  nature's  light  cajinot  aiTjrd  such  notices  of  the  De- 


PRINCIPLl:S  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        65 

i(y,  as  are  sufficient  or  necessary  to  beget  and  maintain  religion 
amongst  men,  then  it  can  never  with  any  rational  man  be  allowed 
sufficient  to  direct  men  in  religion. 

Now,  for  clearing  this  argument,  several  things  are  to  be  dis- 
cussed. And  first  of  all,  it  is  requisite,  that  we  state  such  a  no- 
tion of  religion  in  general,  as  may  be  allowed  to  pass  with  all,  who 
are,  or  can  reasonably  be  supposed  competent  judges  in  such  mat- 
ters. Religion  then,  ingeneral,  may  be  justly  said  to  import  that 
veneration^  respect  or  regard,  which  is  due  from  the  ratioiml  creeb- 
ture  in  his  whole  course  or  life,  to  the  supreme  super-eminentlj/  ex- 
cellent  Being,  his  Creator,  Preserver^  Lord  or  Governor  and  Be- 
nefactor. 

The  actions  of  the  rational  creature,  which  may  come  under  the 
notion  of  religion,  are  of  two  sorts  :  some  of  them  do  directly,  pro- 
perly and  immediately  import  a  regard  or  respect  to  God  as  their 
md ;  which  ihey  are  immediately  and  properly  designed  to  express. 
Such  acts  are  called  acts  of  worship.  And  religion  is  more  emi- 
nently thought  to  consist  in  these,  and  that  not  without  reason. 
Yea,  by  some  it  is  wholly,  and  against  all  reason,  confined  to  them, 
and  circumscribed  within  those  bounds.  Again,  there  are  other  ac- 
tions, which,  though  they  have  other  more  proper,  direct  and  im- 
mediate ends,  on  account  whereof  they  undergo  various  denomi- 
nations, yet  they  also  are,  or  may  be,  and  certainly  should  be  sub- 
ordinate to  that,  which,  though  it  is  not  the  proper,  most  immediate, 
and  distinguishing  end  of  these  actions,  yet  is  the  common  and  ulti- 
mate end,  at  which  all  a  man's  actions  should  be  levelled.  Now  all 
the  actions  of  a  rational  creature,  which  are  of  this  last  sort,  as  re- 
ferred to  a  Deity,  and  importing  somewhat  of  religion,  may  be 
termed  acts  of  moral  obedience.  In  so  far  they  are  religious,  and 
come  within  the  compass  of  our  consideration,  as  they  express  any 
respect  to  God.  And  they  express  and  import  regard  to  God,  in 
as  far  as  they  can  quadrate  with  the  moral  law,  which  is  the  instru- 
ment of  God's  moral  government  of  the  world  ;  and  therefore  if 
they  are  right  and  agreeable  to  this  rule,  they  may  be  termed  acts 
of  moral  obedience,  to  distinguish  them  from  these  acts,  which  are 
solely  and  more  strictly  religious,  and  are  called  acts  of  worship. 

But  to  speak  somewhat  more  particularly  of  this  regard  that  is  due 
to  God,  it  is  as  evident  as  any  thing  can,  that  it  must  be, 

1 .  In  its  formal  nature  different  from  that  respect,  which  we 
may  allowably  pay  to  any  creature  ;  that  is,  it  must  be  given  on  ac- 
counts no  way  common  to  him  with  any  of  the  creatures,  but  on  ac- 
count of  those  distinguishing  excellencies,  which  are  his  incommu- 
nicable glory.  None  can  reasonably  deny  this,  since  it  must  be  al- 
lowed by  all,  that  religions  respect  due  to  God,  and  civil  respect  due 
to  creatures  are  different,  and  must  be  principally  differenced  by 


00  AN  INaUIllY  INTO  THE 

the  grounds  whereon  llie  respect  to  (lie  one  or  other  is  paid.  Now 
the  grounds  whereon  this  homage  is  due  unto  the  Deity,  are  the  su- 
pereminent,  nay,  infinite  excellency  of  his  nature  and  perfections, 
and  his  indisputably  supreme,  absolute  and  independent  sovereignty 
overall  his  creatures,  which  stands  eternally  firm  and  unshaken,  as 
being  supported  by  that  siy;er-pm/??fHCj/ q/"  his  excellency^  his  erf a- 
tion^  preservation y  and  benefits.  Now,  none  of  these  grounds  are, 
in  any  degree,  communicable  to  the  creatures  ;  and  so  to  talk  of  a 
religious  worsliip  due  to  the  creature,  is  to  speak  nonsense  with  a 
witness. 

2.  This  veneration  we  give  to  God  must  he  intensively,  or  as  to 
degree,  not  only  superior  to  that  which  we  give  to  any  creature,  but 
eren  supreme.  It  is  not  enough,  that  we  love  God  on  accounts  pe- 
culiar to  him ;  but  we  must  love  him  with  a  love  superior  to  that 
which  we  give  any  creature,  and  answerable  to  those  accounts, 
whereon  we  do  love  him.  And  the  like  may  be  said  as  to  other  in- 
stances. There  is  no  need  of  insisting  in  the  proof  of  this.  ^\'ould 
our  king  be  pleased,  if  we  paid  him  no  more  respect  than  we  do  his 
servant  ?  Is  the  distance  betwixt  God  and  the  highest  creature  less 
considerable,  than  that  which  is  betw  ixt  a  king  and  his  meanest  sub- 
ject ?  Nay,  is  it  not  infinitely  more  ?  How  can  it  then  reasonably 
be  expected  that  the  same  degree  of  respect  we  pay  to  the  crea- 
tures, will  find  acceptance,  or  answer  the  duty  we  owe  to  the  glori- 
ous and  ever-blessed  Lord  God? 

3.  This  veneration  must  be  extensively  superior  to  tljat  paid  to 
any  of  the  creatures.  Onr  regard  to  the  Deity  must  not  be  con- 
fined to  one  sort  of  our  actions,  (those,  for  instance,  which  are  re- 
ligious in  a  strict  sense,  or  more  plainly,  acts  of  7Vorship ;)  but  it 
must  run  through  every  action  of  pur  life,  inward  and  outward. 
Every  action  is  a  dependent  of  God's,  and  ovres  him  homage.  It 
is  otherwise  with  men  ;  for  to  one  sort  of  men,  we  may  owe  respect, 
in  one  sort  of  our  actions,  and  owe  them  none  in  ap.other.  A  child, 
in  filial  duties,  owes  his  fiithcr  respect ;  as  a  subject,  he  owes  his 
f:;overnor  reverence  ;  and  so  of  other  instances  of  a  like  nature  : 
But  to  no  one  creature  is  he,  in  all  respects,  subject,  or  obliged  by 
every  action  to  express  any  regard.  And  the  reason  is  plain ;  he  is 
subject  to  none  of  them  in  all  respects  wherein  he  is  capable  of 
acting.  Bulvrllh  respect  to  God,  the  matteris  quite  otheiwlse:  what- 
ever lie  has  is  from  God,  and  to  him  he  is  in  all  respects  subject,  on 
Iiim  he  every  way  depends.  The  power  your  f.ither  lias  over  you, 
he  derives  from  God,  and  it  is  God  tiiat  binds  the  duties  you  ar<ito 
pay  your  father  on  you;  and  therefore  God  is  to  be  owned  Rusupreine^  , 
even  in  every  act  of  duty  that  you  perform  to  your  father,  your 
king,  your  neighbour,  or  yourself :  for  you  are  in  all  respects /ij's. 
"While  you  are  subordinate  on  various  accounts  to  others,  yet  still 
God  is  in  every  regard  siqjreme  and  sovereign  L'ord  and  disposer  of 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        Gr 

yon  and  your  actions,  and  therefore  you  owe  Iiim  a  re^rard  in  evcty 
thins  you  think,  speak  or  do.    1  think  this  plain  enough. 

I  hope  this  account  of  the  nature  of  religion  in  general,  vnW  not 
be  found  liable  to  any  considerable  exceptions,  it  beins;  no  other 
than  such  as  the  first  yiew  of  the  nature  of  the  thing  oJfers  to  any 
that  seriously  consi«lers  it.  And  from  this  account  it  is  evident, 
that  religion  is  founded  on  the  knowledge  of  a  Dclly.  A  hlincl 
devotion  that  is  l>egot  and  maintained,  either  by  profound  ignorance 
of  God,  or  confused  notions  of  him,  answers  neither  man's  nature, 
which  is  rational,  and  requires  that  he  proceed  in  aJl  his  actions,  es- 
pecially those  of  most  moment,  rationally,  that  is,  with  knowledge 
and  willingness  ;  nor  will  it  obtain  acceptance,  as  that  wliich  ans\vers 
his  duty,  whereby  he  is  obliged  to  serve  God  with  the  best  and  in 
the  highest  way  that  his  faculties  admit  him.  The  contrary  sup- 
position of  Papists  is  a  scandalous  reproach  to  tlie  nature,  both  o-f 
God  and  man  ;  and  an  engine  suited  only  unto  the  selfish  design  of 
the  villainous  priests,  who,  that  they  may  have  the  conduct  of  men's 
souls,  and  so  the  management  of  their  estates,  have  endeavored  to 
hood-wink  man,  and  make  him  brulisi),  where  he  should  be  most 
rational ;  and  that  they  may  have  the  best,  tltey  niakehim  present 
God  with  the  blind  and  the  lame,  which  his  sonl  ahkors^. 

This,  being,  in  general,  clear,  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  the 
foundation  of  all  acceptable  religion,  it  is  now  proper  to  inquire 
what  discoveries  of  God  are  requisite  to  bring  man  to  si'ch  a  religion, 
as  has  been  above  described,  and  to  keep  him  up  in  the  practice  of 
it.  Now  if  We  look  seriously  into  this  matter,  I  think  Ave^may  lay 
down  the  following  position,  as  clear  beyond  rational  contradic- 
tion. 

1.  That  a  particular  knowledge  of  God  is  requisite  to  this  pur- 
pose, to  beget  and  maintain  this  reverence  for  the  Deity,  which  i.5 
his  undoubted  due.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  have  soma  general 
notions,  however  extensive.  To  conceive  of  God  in  the  general, 
that  he  is  the  best  and  greatest  of  beings,  optimus  maxiinus.  Is  not 
enough.  Tlie  reason  is  obvious  :  we  nnist  have  in  every  sort  of 
actions,  nay,  in  each  particular  action,  that  knowledge  which  may 
influence  and  guide  us  to  that  respect,  which  is  \\v.e  to  him,  in  that 
sort  of  actions,  or  that  particular  one  ;  but  this  general  notion  hiving 
no  more  respect  to  one  than  another,  will  not  do.  It  directs  us  no 
more  in  one  than  another,  unless  the  paitlculars  that  are  compre- 
hended under  that  general  be  explained  to,  and  understood  by  the 
actor. 

2.  That  knowledge,  which  will  answer  the  end,  must  be  large 
and  comprehensive.  This  religion  is  not  to  be  confined  to  one 
particular  sort  of  actions,  but  to  run  through  all,  and  thpi<  f.:)re 
there  must  be  a  knowledge,  not  merely  of  one  or  tv\-opeifectio;i-of 
the  divine  nature,  but  of  all:  not  simply,  as  if  God  were  to  be  com- 


68  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

prehended,  but  of  those  perfections  and  prerogatives  of  Go^, 
which  require  our  regard  in  our  particular  actions,  in  so  far  as  they 
are  the  ground  of  our  veneration,  ^s  for  instance,  to  engage  me 
to  trust  God,  I  must  know  his  powers  his  care  and  knowledge  :  to 
engage  me  to  pray  to  him,  I  must  be  persuaded  of  his  knorvledgCf 
of  his  rvillingness  amd  power  to  assist  me  in  the  suit  I  put  up ;  to 
engage  me  to  pay  him  obedience,  I  must  know  his  authoriiy,  the 
laws  he  has  stamped  it  on,  and  that  he  has  fixed  a  law  to  these 
particular  actions,  either  more  general  or  more  special.  Whence 
it  being  evident,  that  different  actions  require  different  views  of 
God  in  order  to  their  regulation  ;  and  all  a  man's  actions  being  un- 
der rule,  there  must  be  a  large  and  comprehensive  knowledge  of 
God  to  guide  him  in  his  whole  course. 

3.  It  being  no  less  than  an  universal  religion  that  is  to  be  sought 
after,  the  discoveries  of  God  wherein  it  must  be  founded,  must  be 
plain  to  the  capacities  of  all  mankind  ;  and  that  both  as  to  the 
truth  of  these  discoveries  and  their  use.  It  is  certain  that  all  men 
are  no  more  of  the  same  measure  of  understanding  than  they  are  in 
stature.  However  important  the  discovery  is,  if  it  is  above  my 
reach,  it  is  all  one  to  me  as  if  it  were  not  discovered  at  all.  To 
tell  me  of  such  a  thing,  but  it  is  in  the  clouds,  is  to  amuse  and  iwt 
instruct  me.  There  may  indeed,  supposing  an  universal  religion, 
be  somewhat  of  difference  as  to  knowledge  allowed,  as  to  some  of 
the  concernments  of  this  religion,  to  persons  of  more  capacity  anc^ 
industry,  and  who  have  more  time  ;  but  if  it  is  calculated  for  the 
good  of  all  mankind,  the  discoveries  must  be  such,  as  all  who  are 
concerned  may  reach,  as  to  all  its  essentials  ;  for  the  meanest  have 
as  much  concernment  in  them  as  the  greatest. 

4.  It  is  most  evident,  that  these  discoveries  must  be  certain,  or 
rx)me  recommended  by  such  evidence  as  may  be  convincing  and 
satisfi/ing  to  every  mind.  Conjectured  discoveries,  or  surmises  of 
these  things,  built  upon  airy  and  subtile  speculations,  are  not  firm 
«-nough  to  establish  such  a  persuasion  cf  truth  in  the  soul,  as  may 
be  able  to  influence  this  universal  regard,  over  the  belly  of  the 
strongest  inwi.rd  bias  and  outward  rubs. 

5.  The  evidence  of  these  things  must  be  abiding  ;  such  as  may 
be  able  to  keep  up  the  soul  in  a  constant  adherence  to  duty.  It 
13  not  one  day  that  man  is  to  obey,  but  aln  ays  ;  and  therefore 
these  discoveries  must  lie  so  open  to  the  mind  at  all  times,  as  that 
the  soul  may  by  them  be  constantly  kept  up  in  its  adherence  to 
sluty.  If  from  any  external  or  internal  cause,  there  may  arise 
ancii  obstructions  as  may  for  one  day  keep  man  from  those  discov- 
eries, or  the  advantage  of  (hem ;  he  may  ruin,  nay,  must  ruin  him- 
self by  failing  in  his  duty ;  or  at  least,  if  he  is  not  ruined,  he  is 
hiUopcD  to  it. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        €$ 

6.  Upon  the  whole  it  appears,  that  to  found  natural  religion,  or 
to  introduce  and  maintain  among  men  that  regard  which  is  due  to 
the  Deity,  there  is  requisite  such  a  large,  comprehensive,  certain, 
plain,  and  abiding  discovery,  as  may  have  sitfficient  force  to  injlu- 
ence  to  a  compliance  with  his  duty  in  all  instances. 

Thus  far  matters  seem  to  be  carried  on  with  sufficient  evidence. 
We  are  now  come  to  that  which  seems  to  be  the  principal  hintrey 
whereon  the  whole  controversy  about  the  svfficienci/  of  natural  re- 
ligion  turns ;  in  so  far,  at  least,  as  it  is  to  be  determined  by  this 
aigument.  Now  this  is,  whether  nature's  light  can  indeed  aflbrd 
such  discoveries  of  God,  as  are  evinced  to  be  necessary  for  the 
support  of  religion?  If  it  cannot,  then  it  is  focind  insufficient ;  if  it 
can,  then  natural  religion  is  thus  far  acquitted  from  the  charge  laidi 
against  it.  Now,  to  attempt  the  decision  of  this  question  success- 
fully, it  is  necessary  that  we  state  it  right.  It  is  not  then  the  ques- 
tion, whether  in  nature  there  is  sufficient  objective  light  ?  as;  the 
schools  barbarously  speak  ;  that  i.«,  whether  in  the  works  of  rrea- 
tion  and  providence,  which  lie  open  to  our  view,  or  are  the  object 
ofour  contemplation,  there  are  such  prints  of  God,  which,  if  ithey 
were  all  ftilly  understood  by  us,  are  sufficient  to  this  purpose  \  for 
the  question  is  not  concerning  the  works  of  God  without  us,  but 
concerning  us.  The  plain  question  is  this,  "  whether  man  can, 
from  those  works  of  God  alone,  without  the  help  of  revelation,  o^>- 
tain  such  a  knowledge  of  God,  as  is  sufluicient  to  the  purpose  ineii- 
tioned.'* 

Now  the  question  being  concerning  our  power,  or  rather  thei  ex.^ 
fentoi  our  power,  I  know  but  four  ways  that  can  be  thought  update 
come  to  a  point  about  it :   Either,  1 

1 .  By  divine  revelation  we  may  be  informed  what  nature^s  UfcM 
unassisted  can  do.  We  would  willingly  put  the  matter  oh  this  U^ 
Sue  :  Our  adversaries  will  not ;  so  we  must  leave  it.     Or, 

2.  Some  apprehend  that  the  way  to  decide  this,  is,  to  take  our 
measures  fiom  the  nature  of  God  ;  and  to  inquire,  when  God  was^o 
make  or  did  frame  man,  with  what /jowers  it  was  proper  for  him  ti> 
endue  him  ?  or,  with  what  extent  of  power,  considering  the  iiifinitn 
wisdom,  goodness  and  power  of  the  Creator  ?  Tliis  w^y  the  Deistv 
Would  go.  Bnt  1.  It  seems  a  little  presumptuous  for  us  to  pro-" 
scribe,  or  measure  what  was  fit  for  God  to  do,  by  what  appears  to 
us  fit  to  have  been  done.  For  when  we  have  soared  as  high  as 
we  can,  we  must  fall  down  again  ;  for  God's  counsels  are  too  deep 
for  ufi,  and  if  we  should  think  this  or  that  fit  for  God,  yet  he  ha- 
ving a  more  full  view  of  things,  may  think  quite  the  contrary ;  and 
thus  all  that  we  can  come  to  here  in  this  way,  is  but  a  weak  and 
presumptuous  conjecture.  2.  If  in  fact,  what  we  think  fit,  or  con- 
jecture fit  for  God  to  have  done,  it  be  evident  that  God  has  not 
done  ;  that  he  has  given  no  such  jpo.i;fr  or  extent  of  it,  as  we  judge 


ro  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

necessary,  our  judgment  is  not  only  weakly  founded,  but  plainly 
f.ilse  ;  ^-ea,  and  impious  to  boot :  For  if  God  has  done  otherwise, 
it  is  certain  tliat  the  way  which  we  prescribed  was  not  best  ;  nor  can 
ive  hold  by  our  own  apprehension,  whatever  sheivs  it  is  built  on, 
without  an  implicit  charge  of  folly  against  God.  3.  Whatever  we 
may  pretend  the  wisdom  of  God  requires  to  be  done  for  or  given  to 
man,  if  by  no  divine  act  there  is  any  evidence  that  he  has  so  done, 
though  tljere  be  no  proof  of  his  having  done  the  contrary,  yet  it 
weakens  the  evidence  of  all  we  can  say,  if  the  thing  is  such  in  its 
nature,  as  would  l>e  known  by  experience,  if  existent ;  because,  in 
that  case,  the  whole  stress  of  our  argument  leans  upon  a  supposi- 
tion thnt  we  are  capable  of  judging  of  the  wisdom  of  God,  while  it 
is  certain,  we  have  not  all  those  circumstances  under  our  \ieWf 
which  may  malce  it  really  fit  to  act  tin's  way  rather  than  that,  or 
that  way  rather  than  thk's,  which  on  the  other  hand  he  certainly 
has.     This  way  then  we  cannot  decide  the  case. 

IL  We  may  immediately  perhaps  judge  of  the  exleiif  of  man^s 
<ih'dihi  in  this  sort,  by  a  direct  inquhy  into  the  ncdure  of  tfte  powers. 
But  this  v/ay  is  as  uncertain  as  the  former ;  for  there  is  no  agree- 
Tncnt  amongst  the  most  judicious  about  the  natnre  of  f'hosv  potverSy 
witliout  endless  controversies.  Ami  all  that  are  really  judicious 
own  such  darkness  in  tliis  matter,  that  will  not  allow  them  to  pretend 
"iikpmselyes  capable  to  decide  the  question  this  way.  It  is  little  we 
knom  o?  ihe  riufvse,  or  power.'^,  or  actings  o?  spirits:  Nor  do  I  be- 
lieve* that  ever  any  person  that  understands,  will  pretend  to  decide,, 
the  [controversy  this  M'ay.     Wherefore, 

4f.  We  must,  upon  the  whole,  give  over  the  business,  or  inquire 
intof  the  extent  of  our  ability  by  experience ;  and  judge  what  man 
can/  do  by  wliat  he  has  done.  If  not  one  has  made  sutTicient  dis- 
coveries of  God,  it  is  rash  to  say  that  any  one  can  by  the  mere 
^'i^ht of  valvre  make  them :  More  especially  it  will  appear  so,  if  v,& 
consider,  that  all  m-mkind  must  be  pretended  equally  capable  of 
thiese  discoveries,  which  concern  their  own  practice.  It  is  strange 
lei  pretend  that  all  are  capable  of  doing  (hat  which  none  has  done, 
if  urther,  these  discoveries  are  not  of  th<it  sort  that  may  be  sufScief-t 
t/o  answer  their  end,  if  one  in  one  age  shall  make  some  steps  toAvards 
them,  and  another  afterwards  impiove  them  :  Bsjt  it  is  necessary 
that  every  one,  in  every  age,  and  at  every  period  of  his  life,  have 
exact  acquaintance  v.ith  them,  in  so  far  as  is  nee(!ful  to  regulate  his 
ffiaclice  in  that  period  of  his  life.  When  I  am  in  one  station,  I 
must  either  fiii  in  the  respect  due  to  God,  and  so  lay  myself  open 
to  justice,  or  I  must  know  as  much  of  God,  as  is  requisite  to  influ- 
«'nce  a  due  regard  in  that  station,  or  that  part  of  my  life  that  now 
runs  ;  and  therefore  an  universal  defect  as  to  those  discoveries, 
must  inevitably  overtltrow  the  prtlendcd  ahiJift/  of  man  to  make 
t{i£s8  discoveries,  and  consequently  the  sujficicnc^  of  ncdurt^S' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        71 

light  to  beget  or  maintain  religion,    which  cannot  be  supported  with- 
out them. 

Now  for  clearing  this  matter,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  what 
we  are  upon  is  a  ntgalive,  and  it  belongs  to  (hose  who  affirm  man 
able  to  make  such  discoveries  of  God,  to  show  by  ^vhom  and  where 
these  discoveries  have  been  made,  or  to  produce  those  notices  of 
God  that  are  built  on  the  7>^<'^€  light  of  naliiye,  that  are  sufficient  to 
this  puipose.  Now,  none  of  (hem  dare  pretend  this  has  been  done, 
oi",  at  least,  shew  who  has  done  it,  or  make  the  attempt  them- 
selves ;  and  therefore  we  might  take  it  as  confessed,  that  it  is  not 
to  be  done. 

But  if  it  is  still  pretended,  that  this  has  been  done,  though  with- 
out telling  us  by  w  horn,  or  pointing  to  these  discoveries  where  we 
may  find  them  : 

I  answer,  How  shall  we  know  this  ?  May  we  know  it  by  the  ef- 
fects ef  it  in  the  lives  of  those  who  either  have  had  no  other  light 
save  that  of  nature^  as  it  wtis  with  the  philosophers  of  old  before 
Christ,  or  m  ho  own  no  other  save  that  of  nature,  as  the  Deists  and 
others  who  rejected  Christianity  I  Truly,  if  we  judge  by  this  rule, 
we  are  sure  the  negative  will  be  much  confirmed  1  For  it  is  plain 
that  those  notions  of  a  God,  which  were  entertained  by  the  philo- 
sophers of  old,  influenced  none  of  them  to  glorify  him,  as  God. 
The  vulgar  Heathens  were  void  of  any  respect  to  the  true  God ,-. 
nay,  by  the  whole  of  their  practice  [jetrayed  tlie  profoundest  ig- 
norance, and  most  contemptuous  disregard  of  him.  The  philoso- 
phers, not  one  of  them  excepted,  wliatever  notions  they  had  of  a 
Deity,  and  W  hatever  length  some  of  them  went  in  moralifji/,  upon 
other  inducements,  yet  shewed  nothing  like  to  that  peculiar,  high 
and  extensive  respect  to  the  one  true  God  which  we  now  inquire  after. 
We  may  bid  a  defiance  to  the  Deists,  to  shew  us  any  thing  like  it  in 
the  practice  even  of  a  Socrates,  a  Plato^  a  Seneca,  or  any  othersi 
of  them.  Their  virtue  was  plainly  built  upon  another  bottom.  It 
has  been  judiciously  observed  by  one  of  late,  that  (here  was  little 
notice  taken  of  God  in  their  ethicks  ;  and  I  may  add,  as  little  re- 
gard in  their  practice.  Nor  are  the  lives  of  our  Deists,  or  others 
since,  any  better  proof  of  the  sufficiency/  of  the  natural  notices  of 
God,  to  beget  and  suj)port  a  due  veneration  for  him. 

If  the  Deists  decline  thi^  trial  cf  the  suffic'enq/  of  those  discO' 
veries  of  a  God,  by  (heir  inHuence  upon  practice,  then  we  must 
look  at  them  in  themselves.  And  here  we  nuist  have  recourse,  ei- 
ther to  those  wlio  had  no  acquaintance  wltii  the  scripture  I'cvela- 
tion  ;  or  to  those  who  have  given  us  accourits  of  God  amongst  our- 
selves ;  who  though  they  own  not  the  scriptures  to  be  from  Goil, 
}'et  have  had  access  to  them,  for  the  impiovement  of  their  own 
notions  about  God.  The  last  sort  might  be  cast,  as  iucomnetei:! 
witnesses  in  this  ci^e,  upon  very  revelant  giouuus.     Bui.  wc  shall 


72  AN  INatimY  INTO  THE 

pve  our  enemies  all  that  they  can  desire,  even  as  to  the  advantage 
they  may  have  this  Avay,  that  they  may  see  our  cause  is  not  wanting 
in  evidence  and  ctrlainty. 

We  begin  then  with  those  who  have  been  left  to  the  mtre  light 
rif  nature,  to  spell  out  the  letters  of  God's  name,  from  the  works 
o( creation  and  providence,  without  any  acquaintance  with  the  more 
plain  scripture  account  of  God.  Now  what  we  have  to  say  as  to 
^em,  we  shall  comprize  in  a  few  observations. 

1.  As  for  the  attainments  of  the  vulgar  Heathens,  there  is  no 
place  forjudging  of  them  otherwise  than  by  their  practice.  They 
have  consigned  nothing  to  writing,  and  so  we  have  no  other  way  to 
guess  at  their  opinions  in  matters  of  religion,  but  either  by  their 
practice,  or  by  ascribing  to  them  the  principles  of  those,  who  in 
their  respective  countries,  had  the  disposal  of  these  matters. 
Whichsoever  way  we  consider  the  matter,  it  must  be  owned  that 
the  vulgar  Heathens  were  stupidly  ignorant  as  to  the  truths  of  re- 
ligion. If  Vie  make  their  practice  the  measure  of  judging,  which  in 
this  case  is  necessary,  none  can  hesitate  about  it.  If  we  make  the 
principles  and  knowledge  of  their  leaders  the  standard,  whereby 
we  are  to  judge  of  their  attainments,  and  make  a  suitable  abate- 
ment, because  scholars  must  always  be  supposed  to  know  less  than 
their  masters,  I  am  sure  the  matter  will  not  be  much  mended,  aa 
the  ensuing  remarks  will  in  part  clear. 

2.  As  to  the  pliilosophers,  if  I  had  time  and  opportunity  to  pre- 
sent in  a  hodi/  or  system  all  that  has  been  said,  not  by  one  of  them, 
but  by  all  the  best  of  them  put  together,  it  would  put  any  one  that 
reads,  to  wonder,  that  they,  "  who  were  such  giants,"  as  an  ex- 
cellent person  speaks,  "  in  all  other  kinds  of  literature,  should 
*'  prove  such  dwarfs  in  divinity,  that  they  might  go  to  school  to  get 
*'  a  lesson  from  the  most  ignorant  of  christians  that  know  any 
*'  thing  at  all."*  Any  one  that  will  but  give  himself  the  trouble 
to  peruse  their  opinions  about  God,  as  they  lie  scattered  in  their 
writings,  or  even  w  here  they  are  proposed  to  more  advantage  by 
those  who  have  collected  and  put  them  together,  will  soon  be  con- 
vinced of  how  low  a  stature  their  divinity  was,  and  how  justly  the 
apostle  Paul  said,  that  by  their  wisdom  they  knew  not  Ood.  All 
their  knowledge  of  God  was  no  more  than  plain  and  gross  igno- 
rance, of  which  the  best  of  them  were  not  ignorant,  and  therefore, 
Thales,  Solon,  Socrates,  and  many  others,  spoke  either  nothing  of 
God  at  all,  or  that  which  was  next  to  nothing.  And  it  had  been 
well  for  others,  if  they  had  done  so  too  ;  what  they  spoke,  not  only 
falling  short  of  a  sufficient  account,  but  presenting  most  abominable 


Cha.  Wolsey's  reasonableness  of  scripture  belief. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEII5TS.        73 

and  misshapen  notions  abont  God  ;  of  which  we  have  a  large  ac- 
count in  Cicero  de  Natura  Deonim.^ 

3.  Besides  that  endless  variety  amongst  different  personi?,  in 
their  opinions  about  a  Deity,  which  is  no  mean  evidence  of  their 
darkness,  even  the  very  same  persons,  who  seem  to  give  the  best 
accounts,  are  wavering  and  uncertain,  say  and  unsay,  seem  posi- 
tive in  one  place,  and  immediately  in  the  very  next  sentence  seem 
to  he  uncertain  and  fluctuating.  Thus  it  is  with  them  all,  and  thus 
it  usually  is  with  persons  who  are  but  gioping  in  the  dark,  and 
know  not  well  how  to  extricate  themselves. 

4.  They  who  go  furthest,  have  never  adventured  to  give  any 
methodical  account.  They  wanted  materials  for  this ;  and  there- 
fore give  but  dark  hints  here  and  there.  Cicero^  who  would  make 
one  expect  such  an  account,  while  he  inscribes  his  book  De  Natura 
Deorwn,  yet  establishes  scarce  any  thing ;  but  spends  his  time 
in  refuting  the  opinion  of  others,  without  daring  to  advance  his 
own.-f; 

5.  They  wlio  have  gone  furthest,  are  too  narrow  in  their  ac- 
counts, they  are  manifestly  defective  in  the  most  material  things. 
They  are  all  reserved  about  the  number  of  the  Gods.  It  is  true 
the  best  do  own  that  there  is  one  Supreme ;  but  then  there  is 
scarce  any  of  them  positive  that  there  are  no  more  Gods  save  one. 
No  not  Socrates  himself,  who  is  supposed  to  die  a  martyr  for  this 
truth,  durst  own  this  plainly.  And  while  this  is  undetermined,  all 
religion  is  left  loose  and  uncertain  ;  and  mankind  cannot  know  how 
to  distribute  their  regard  to  the  several  deities.  Hence  another 
defect  arises,  and  that  is  about  the  snper-eminenci/  of  the  divine  ex- 
cellencies. Although  the  Supreme  Being  may  be  owned  superior 
in  order;  yet  the  inferior  Deities  being  supposed  more  immediate  in 
their  influence,  this  will  substract  from  the  Supreme  Deity  much 
of  his  respect,  and  bestow  it  elsewhere.  Moreover,  about  God'a 
creating  power  their  accounts  are  very  uncertain,  few  of  them 
owning  it  plainly.  Nor  are  any  of  them  plain  enough  about  the 
special  providence  of  God,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  sup- 
port religion  in  the  world. 


*  Cicero,  L'lb.  1.  P.  4.  Qui  vero  Deo^  esse  dixerunt,  tantn  sunt  in  varietate  ac 
dissentione  constitxiti,  ntt  eorum  molestum  sit  annumerave  senteniias.  JVwm  de 
figuris  Dcovitm  (^  dn  locis  alqiie  sedibns  W  actione  vita,  multa  dicuntvr,  SJc — 
"  But  those  who  have  affirmed  that  there  are  Gods,  have  j^one  into  r,o  f^rcat  a. 
"  variety  and  difitrence  of  opinion,  that  it  i:3  difficult  to  enumerate  their  sen- 
"  timents,  for  many  thing's  are  said  by  them  concerning'  the  shapes  of  the 
"  Gods,  their  places,  habitations,  and  manner  of  life." 

t  Dc  Natura  Deorum,  Lib.  2.  JIti,  inqiiit,  obUtvs  es  quodinHio  Jixerim,  facilius 
me  talibus  de  rebus,  qiiodnoii  sentirem  qiium  quod  sentirem  diccre  posse. — "  Have 
"  you  forgot  that  I  told  you  at  the  bcf^'inning',  that  I  could  mors  easily  tcJl 
*f"what  I  did  »at  think,  tLan  what  I  UjJught,  of  these  matters !" 

10 


74  AN  INaUlRY  INTO  THE 

6.  As  theh-  accounts  are  too  narrow,  so  in  what  they  do  Dtm 
they  are  too  general.  But  will  this  maintain  religion  ?  No,  by  no 
means.     But  there  must  be  a  particular  discovery  of  these  things. 

Well,  do  they  afford  this  ?  Nay,  so  far  are  they  from  explaining 
themselves  to  any  purpos^e  here,  that  industriously  they  keep  in 
dark  generals.  The  divine  excellencies,  unless  it  be  a  few  negative 
ones,  they  do  seldom  attempt  any  explication  of.  His  providence 
they  dare  not  attempt  any  particular  account  of.  The  extent  of  it 
to  all  particular  actions  is  denied  by  many  of  their  schools,  owned 
distinctly  by  few,  if  any  ;  but  particularly  cleared  up  by  none  of 
them.*  The  laws  whereby  he  rules  men  are  no  where  declared* 
When  some  of  them  are  insisted  on  in  their  ethicks,  the  authority 
of  God  in  them,  w^iich  is  the  only  supreme  ground  of  obedience, 
and  that  which  alone  can  lay  any  foundation  for  our  acceptance  in 
that  obedience  at  God's  hand,  is  no  where  taken  notice  of.  The 
holiness  of  the  divine  nature,  which  is  the  great  restraint  from  sin^ 
is  little  noticed,  except  where  some  of  the  more  abominable  evils  are 
spoke  of.  The  goodness  of  God  as  a  rewarder,  is  not  by  any  of 
them  cleared  up.  And  yet  upon  these  things  the  whole  of  religion 
hangs,  which  by  them  are  either  wholly  passed  over,  or  mentioned 
in  generals,  or  darkened  by  explications  that  give  no  light  to  the 
tjenerals  ;  at  least,  and  for  most  part,  are  so  far  from  explaining, 
that  they  obscure,  nay  corrupt  them,  by  blending  pernicious  false- 
hoods with  the  most  valuable  truths. 

7.  The  discoveries  they  offer  are  not  for  the  most  part  proven. 
)jut  merely  asserted.  Their  notions  are  most  of  them  learned 
from  tradition,  and  they  wCre,  it  would  seem,  at  a  loss  about  argu- 
ments to  support  them.  Where  the  greatest  certainty  is  required^ 
least  is  found. 

8.  Where  they  do  prodlice  arguments,  as  they  do  sometimes, 
for  the  being  and  providence  of  God  in  general,  they  are  too  dark 
and  nice,  both  in  matter  and  manner,  to  be  of  any  use  to  the  gen* 
crallty  of  mankind. 

To  have  produced  particular  instances  for  the  justification  of 
each  of  these  observations,  would  have  been  too  tedious.  Any  on«; 
that  would  desire  to  be  satisfied  about  them,  may  be  fully  furnished 
With  instances,  if  he  will  give  himself  the  trouble  to  peruse  Cicero 
dp  Nafura  Deorum,  Diogenes  Laertius''s  Lives  (if  the  Philoso^ 
phers,  or  Stanleys  Lives ;  but  especially  the  writings  of  the  seve- 
ral philosophers  themselves  concerning  this  subject.  Nor  will  this 
task  be  very  tedious,  If  he  is  but  directed  to  the  places  where  they 


♦  T)octrinam  de  providentia   rerum  partictilarisive  gratia   n  veteribv- 

Cquatemts  ex  eornm  lihris  qui  extant,  collect  potest  J    rcmif;sius  rredi  obnervainuf'. 
Herbert  de  Verltute,  pag'e  271,  272. — "  We  •bserve  that  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
♦'  versal  providence  and  particular  g-racc  was  but  faintly  believed  by  the  ar. 
*'  cicnts,  so  far  as  ca.n  be  collected  from  their  boulcs." 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        75 

treat  of  Ood  :  For  they  insist  not  long  on  tliis  subject,  and  the 
better  and  wiser  sort  of  them  are  most  sparing. 

When  I  review  these  observations,  which  occurred  by  my  read- 
ing the  works  of  the  Heathens,  and  their  opinions  concerning  God, 
I  cMild  not  but  admire  the  gross  inadvertency,  to  give  it  no  Avorsc 
word,  of  the  Deists,  (and  more  especially  of  the  late  lord  Herbert, 
•who  was  a  man  of  learning  and  application)  who  pretend  that  the 
knowledge  of  those  general  attributes  of  God,  his  greatness  and 
goodness,  vulgarly  expressed  by  Optimus  MaxbnuSy  are  sufficient : 
Si?ice  it  is  plain  from  what  has  been  said,  1.  That  this  general 
knowledge  is  of  no  significancy  to  influence  such  a  peculiar,  high 
and  extensive,  practical  regard  to  the  Deity,  as  the  notion  of  reli- 
gion necessarily  imports.  Of  which  even  Blount  was,  it  seems, 
aware,  when  he  confesses  in  his  Religio  Laid,  that  there  is  a  ne^ 
cessity  tliat  his  articles  must  be  well  explained.  2.  It  is  plain  that 
the  philosophers,  and  consequently  the  common  people,  did  not 
imderstand  well  the  meaning  of  those  articles,  or  of  those  general 
notions  concerning  God,  at  least,  in  any  degree  answerable  to  the 
iiid  we  now  have  in  view. 

I  dare  submit  these  observations,  as  to  their  truth,  to  any  impar- 
tial person,  who  will  be  at  pains  to  try  them,  upon  the  granting  of 
a  twofold  reasonable  demand.  1.  That  he  will  consult  either  the 
authors  themselves,  or  those,  who  cannot  be  sus])ected  of  any  bias, 
by  their  being  Christians,  which  I  hope  Deists  will  think  just ;  sucli 
as  Cicero,  Diogenes  Laertlus,  &c.  or  those  who  have  made  largn 
collections,  not  merely  of  their  fif^nera/  sentences  concerning  God  -, 
but  of  their  explications.  In  which  sort  Stanley  excels.  2.  I  re- 
quire that,  in  reading  the  authors,  that  they  do  not  lay  hold  on  a 
general  assertion,  and  so  run  away,  without  considering  the  whotr 
of  what  the  authors  speak,  on  that  head.  The  reasons  why  I  make 
these  demands,  are,  first,  some  persons  designing,  for  one  end  or 
other,  to  illustrate  points  in  Christianity  with  quotations  from  }Ic;i 
then  authors,  take  up  general  expressions,  which  seem  congruous 
with,  or  may  be  the  same,  which  the  scripture  uses,  without  con- 
sidering how  far  they  differ,  when  they  both  descend  to  a  particular 
explication  of  those  general  words.  Again,  some  Christians,  writinii, 
the  lives  of  philosophers,  and  collecting  their  opinions,  are  misled 
by  favour  to  some  particular  persons,  of  whom  they  have  conceiv- 
ed a  rnsf  idea,  and  therefore  either  suppress  or  wrest  what  may 
detract  from  the  person  they  design  to  magnify.  IM.  Dacier,  foi- 
instance,  has  written  the  life  of  Plato :  but  that  account  is  the  issue 
of  a  peculiar  favour  for  that  philosopher's  notions  in  general;  and  it 
is  evidently  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  reconcile  his  sentiments  to  the 
Christian  religion,  A  work  that  some  others  have  attempted  be- 
fore. To  this  purpose  Plato's  words  arc  wrested,  and  such  con- 
structions put  on  them,  as  can  no  other  vray  be  justified,  but  by  sup- 


7er  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  IHE 

posing  that  no  material  points  of  the  Christian  religion  could  be  hidf 
from  Plato,  or  his  master  Socrates.  And  yet  after  all,  Plato's  gross 
mistakes,  and  that  in  matters  of  the  highest  import ;  yea,  and  such 
of  them,  as  are  supposed,  generally,  to  lie  within  the  reach  of  na- 
ture's light,  are  so  obvious  and  discernible,  that  the  evidence  of  the 
thing  extorts  an  acknowledgment.  To  give  but  one  instance ;  after 
the  wiiter  has  made  a  great  deal  ado  about  Plato's  knowledge  ofthe 
Trm%,*  a  story  which  hath  been  oft  told,  but  never  yet  proven, 
it  is  plainly  acknowledged,  that  he  speaks  of  the  Three  Persons  of 
the  Deiti/  as  of  three  Gods,  and  three  different  jirinciples  ;  which 
is,  in  plain  terms,  to  throw  down  all  that  was  built  before,  and 
prove  that  Plato  knew  neither  the  Triniii/,  nor  the  one  true  God, 
Finally,  general  sentences  occur  in  those  authors,  which  seem  to 
import  much  more  knowledge  of  God,  than  a  further  search  into 
their  writings  will  allow  us  to  believe  they  had  :  For  any  one  will 
quickly  see,  that  in  those  general  expressions,  they  spoke  as  chil- 
dren that  understood  not  what  they  say,  or  at  least,  have  but  a 
very  imperfect  notion  of  it.  And  though  this  may  seem  a  severe 
reflection  on  these  great  men  ;  yet  I  am  sure  none  shall  impartially 
read  them  who  will  not  own  it  just. 

But  now,  to  return  to  our  subject,  this  sufficient  discover?/  of  God 
not  being  found  amongst  those,  who  were  strangers  to  the  scriptures 
and  Christianity,  let  us  next  proceed  to  consider  those,  who  have 
had  access  to  the  scriptures,  and  lived  since  the  Christian  religion 
obtained  in  the  world.  And  here  it  must  be  owned,  that  since  that 
time  philosophers  have  much  improven  natural  theology,  and  given 
a  far  better  account  of  God,  and  demonstrated  many  of  his  attri- 
])utes  from  reason,  that  were  little  known  before,  to  the  confusion  of 
Atheists.  From  the  excellent  performances  of  this  kind,  which 
are  many,  I  design  not  to  detract.  I  am  content  that  a  due  value 
be  put  upon  them :  but  still  I  am  for  putting  them  only  in  their  own 
place,  and  ascribing  no  moi-e  to  them  than  is  really  their  due- 
Wherefore,  notwithstanding  what  has  been  now  readily  granted,  I 
think  I  may  confidently  offer  the  few  following  remarks  on  them. 

] .  We  might  justly  refuse  them,  as  no  proper  measure  of  the 
abilih/  of  unassisted  reason,  in  as  much  as  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
the  light,  whereby  those  discoveries  have  been  made,  was  borrowed 
from  the  sciiptures  :  of  which  none  needs  any  other  proof  than 
merely  to  consider  the  vast  improvement  of  knowledge,  as  to  those 
matters,  immediately  after  the  spreading  of  Christianity,  which  can- 
not, with  any  shew  of  reason  be  otherwise  accounted  for,  than  by 
OAvning  that  this  light  was  derived  from  the  scriptures,  and  the  ob- 
servation and  writings  of  Christians,  which  made  even  the  Heathens 
ashamed  of  their  former  notions  of  God,     But  not  to  insist  on  this. 


M.  Dacier's  life  of  Plato,  i^age  141. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        77 

2.  Wlio  have  made  those  improvements  of  natural  theology  T 
Not  the  Heathens  or  Deists.  It  is  little  any  of  them  have  done  this 
way.  The  accurate  systems  of  natural  theology  have  come  from 
Christian  philosophers,  who  do  readily  own  that  the  scripture  points 
them,  not  only  to  the  notions  of  God  they  therein  deliver,  but  also 
to  many  of  the  proofs  Hkewise,  and  that  their  reason,  if  not  thus  as- 
sisted, would  have  failed  them  as  much,  as  that  of  the  old  philoso- 
phei-s  did  them. 

3.  It  is  worthy  our  observation,  that  such  of  the  Christians,  who 
favour  the  Deists  most,  such  as  the  Socinians  and  some  others,  do 
give  most  lame  and  defective  accounts  of  God.  They  who  lean 
much  to  reason,  their  reason  leads  them  into  those  mistakes  about 
the  nature  and  knowledge  of  God,  which  tend  exceedingly  to  weak- 
en the  practical  influence  of  the  notion  of  a  God.  And  we  have 
reason  to  believe  that  the  Deists  Avill  be  found  to  join  with  them,  in 
their  gross  notions  of  God,  as  ignorant  of  the  free  actions  of  men, 
before  they  are  done,  and  as  not  so  particularly  concerned  about 
them  in  his  providencCy  with  many  such-like  notions,  which  sap  the 
foundations  of  all  practical  regard  to  God. 

4.  But  let  the  best  of  these  si/sterns  be  condescended  on,  they 
cannot  be  allowed  to  contain  sufficient  discoveries  of  God.  For  it 
is  evident  beyond  contradiction,  that  they  are  neither  full  enough 
in  explaining,  what  they  in  the  general  own,  nor  do  they  extend  to 
some  of  those  things  which  are  of  most  necessity  and  influence  to 
t.up\)ort  practical  religion.  They  prove  a  providence,  but  cannot 
pretend  to  give  any  such  account  of  it,  as  can  either  encourage  or 
direct  to  any  dependence  on,  trust  in,  or  practical  improvement  of 
it.  And  the  like  might  be  made  appear  of  other  perfections. 
Again,  they  cannot  pretend  to  any  tolerable  account  of  the  remu- 
nerative bounty,  the  pardoning  mercy  and  grace  of  God,  on  v/hicli 
the  whole  of  religion,  as  things  now  stand,  entirely  hangs.  Can 
they  open  these  things  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  hold  up  religion  in 
the  world  ?  They  who  know  what  religion  is,  and  what  they  have 
done,  or  may  do,  will  not  say  it. 

5.  In  their  proofs  of  these  truths,  there  must  be  owned  a  waid 
of  that  evidence,  Avhich  is  requisite  to  compose  the  mind  in  the 
persuasion  of  them,  and  establish  it  against  objections.  Let  scrip- 
ture light  be  laid  aside,  which  removes  objections  ;  and  let  a  man 
have  no  more  to  confirm  him  of  those  truths  save  these  arguments, 
the  difiiculties  daily  occurring  from  obvious  providences  will  jumble 
the  obseiver  so,  that  he  will  find  these  proofs  scarcely  sufficient  to 
keep  him  firm  in  his  assent  to  the  truths  ;  and  if  so,  far  less  will 
they  be  able  to  influence  his  practice  suitably  against  temptations 
to  sin.  Nov/  this  may  arise,  not  so  much  from  the  real  n'eakness 
of  the  argument:^,  which  may  be  conclusive,  as  from  this,  that  most 
of  them  are  rather  drawn  ab  absurdo,  than  from  any  clear  light 


78  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

about  the  nature  of  the  object  known  ;  and  hence  there  comes  ngt 
that  light  alon^i;,  as  to  difficulties,  which  is  necessary  to  remove 
them.  And  though  these  arguments  silence  in  dispute,  and  close 
the  advei-sary's  mouth  ;  yet  they  do  not  satisfy  the  mind.  i>Iore- 
over  some  of  no  mean  ^consideration,  have  pretended  that  many  of 
these  demonstrations,  even  as  to  some  of  the  most  considerable  at- 
tributes of  God,  are  inconclusive  :  Particularly  they  have  asserted, 
that  the  nnifi/  of  God  was  not  to  be  proven  by  the  light  of  nature^ 
nor  special  providence.  But  not  to  carry  the  matter  thus  far,  it  is 
certain  that  the  force  of  these  demonstrations  must  lie  very  secret, 
that  such  persons,  who  owned  the  truths,  and  bore  them  good  will, 
yet  could  not  find  it. 

Much  more  might  be  said  on  this  head,  but  I  am  not  willing  to 
invalidate  these  arguments,  or  even  to  shew  all  that  might,  perliaps, 
not  ouly  be  said,  but  made  appear  against  them.  But  whatever 
there  is  as  to  this,  it  is  certain  (hat  the  discoveries  of  God  by  na- 
ture's light  being  small,  are  easily  clouded,  by  entangling  difficulties 
nrising  from  the  dark  occurrences  of  providence,  and  the  natural 
weakness  and  unsteadiness  of  our  minds,  which  are  always  to  be 
found  in  matters  sublime,  and  not  attended  with  strong  evidence. — 
And  attention  in  this  case  will  increase  the  darkness,  and  force  on 
such  an  acknowledgment  as  Simonides  made  to  Ilieio,  the  tyrant 
of  Syracuse,  That  "  the  longer  he  thought  about  God,  the  more 
•*  difficulty  he  found  to  give  any  account  of  him." 

6.  They  must,  whatever  be  allowed  as  to  their  validity  in  them- 
selves, be  owned  to  be  of  no  use  to  the  generality,  nay,  to  the  far 
greater  part  of  mankind.  No  man  who  knows  them,  and  knows 
the  world,  will  pretend  that  the  one  half  of  mankind  is  alile  to 
comprehend  the  force  of  them.  And  so  they  are  still  in  the  dark 
about  God  ;  which  quite  everts  the  whole  story  about  the  sufficien- 
cy of  the  natural  discoveries  of  a  Deity. 

7.  It  is  plain,  that  there  is  no  serving  God,  walking  with  or  wor- 
shipping of  him,  without  thouglits,  and  serious  ones  too,  of 
Iiim.  Now,  his  nature  and  excellencies  are  infinite,  how  then 
shall  we  conceive  ,  of -'tliera  ?  Our  darkness  and  weakness  will 
not  allow  us  to  think  of  him  as  he  is,  and  conceive  those  perfections 
as  they  are  in  him.  And  to  conceive  otherwise  is  dangerous.  We 
may  mistake  in  other  things  without  sin  ;  but  to  frame  wrong,  and 
other  conceptions  of  God  and  his  excellencies,  than  the  truth  of  the 
thing  requires,  is  dangerous  anil  sinful  ;  for  it  f limes  an  idol.  Now, 
though  this  difficulty  may  be  easy  to  less  attwRtve  minds  ;  yet  it 
will  quite  confound  persons  who  are  in  earnestj/antl  understand  what 
tliey  are  doing,  in  their  approaches  to  God*'.  Nor  can  ever  the 
i-nindsof  such  be  satisfied  in  our  present  state,  otherwise  than  by 
Ood's  telling  us,  how  we  are  to  conceive  of  him,  and  authorising  us  to 
do  it  in  a  way  of  condescension  to  our  pres£nt  dark  and  iufirni  state. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        79 

8.  I  cannot  forbear  to  notice,  as  what  wants  not  Its  own  weight  in 
this  case,  though  in  condescension  we  did  a  little  wave  argument* 
drawn  from  the  practical  infiimice  of  truths,  that  however  great  the 
improvements,  as  to  notions  of  truths  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Deity  may  of  late  have  been,  yet  the  effects  of  these  notices  in 
their  highest  improvement,  have  been  far  from  recommending  them, 
as  sufficient  to  the  end  we  have  now  in  view.  This  natural  fheobj- 
gy  has  rather  made  men  more  learned  than  more  pious.  Where 
scripture  truth  has  not  been  received  in  its  love  and  power,  men 
have  seldom  been  bettered  by  their  improvements  in  natural  theo- 
logy.  But  we  see  in  experience,  that  they  who  can  prove  most 
and  best  in  these  matters,  evidence  least  regard  to  the  Deity  in  their 
practice. 

I  shall  add  one  observation  more,  which  at  once  enforces  the  ar- 
gument we  arc  upon,  against  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religionf 
and  cuts  ofl'  a  pretended  retortion  of  it,  against  the  Christian  reli- 
gion ;  and  it  is  this  :  The  religion  the  Deists  plead  for,  and  are 
obliged  to  maintain,  is  a  religion  that  pleads  acceptance  on  its  own 
account,  which  has  no  provision  against  guilt  and  escapes,  as  shall 
be  demonstrated  hereafter  ;  a  religion  which  consequently  must  bo 
7nore  perfect,  and  so  requires  a  more  exarJ  knorvledge  of  the  Deity 
in  order  to  its  support :  whereas,  the  Christian  religion  is  one  which 
is  calculated  for  man  in  hh  fallen  state  ;  and  the  fall  is  every 
where  in  it  supposed,  and  a  gracious  provision  made  agiiinst  defects 
in  knowledge^  and  unhalloived  practical  escapes. 


C  II  A  P.    V. 

Proving  the  lusvfficiencr/  of  Natural  Religion  from  its  defective- 
ness as  to  the  worship  of  God. 

THE  argument  we  are  to  improve  against  the  sufficieno/  of  na^ 
furnl  religion  in  this  chapter,  might  have  been  considpretl  as  a 
branch  of  the  foregoing  :  But,  that  we  nr.iy  be  more  distinct,  and 
to  shew  a  regard  unto  the  importance  of  the  matter,  we  shall  con- 
sider it  as  a  distinct  argument  by  itself. 

Now,  therefore,  when  we  arc  to  speak  of  the  wenship  of  Gpd, 
it  is  not  of  that  inward  veneration  that  consists  in  acts  of  tho  mind, 
such  as  esteem,  fear,  love,  trust,  and  the  like  ;  but  of  th(;  outward, 
stated,  and  solemn  way  of  expressing  this  inward  veneration.  That 
there  sliould  not  only  be  an  inward  regard  to  the  Deity  in  onr 
minds,  intiueming  the  whole  of  our  out vt^ard  deportment  ;  but  that 
besides,  there  should  bo  lixcd,  outward,  and  solemn  ways  of  exer- 


so  AN  INQUIHY  INTO  THE 

cising  and  expressing  these  inward  actings,   seems  evident  beyond 
any  reasonable  exception — 

1.  From  the  general  agreement  of  the  world  in  this  point.  All 
the  world  has  owned  some  worship  necessary.  Every  nation  and 
people  had  their  peculiar  way  of  worship.*  It  is  true,  most  of 
them  were  ridiculous,  many  of  them  plainly  wicked,  and  all  of  them 
vain  ;  but  this  makes  not  against  the  thing  in  general ;  only  it  be- 
speaks the  darkness  of  nature's  light,  as  to  the  way  of  managing  in 
particulars,  that  which  in  general  it  directs  to. 

2.  The  Deists  themselves  own  this  much.  Herbert  in  his  trea- 
tise, de  Religione  Gentilium^  confesses  it  a  second  branch  of  the 
generally  received  religion,  for  which  he  pleads  that  God  is  to  be 
worshipped.  It  is  true,  in  his  next,  while  he  tells  us  that  virtue 
and  piety  were  owjied  to  be  the  principal  means  of  worshipping 
him,  he  would  seem  to  preclude  us  from  the  benefit  of  the  former 
acknowledgment.  But  yet  he  dares  not  assert,  that  this  which  he 
condescends  on  was  the  onli/  ivai/,  and  so  pretend  the  worship  we 
speak  of  unnecessary :  But  being  to  hold  forth  the  sujjiciency  of  this 
natural  religion^  he  was  loth  to  speak  any  more  of,  that,  which 
would  lead  him,  if  he  had  considered  it,  unto  a  discovery  of  its 
nakedness.  But  others  of  the  Deists  do  own  the  necessity  of  such 
a  worship,  and  pretend  prayer  and  praise  sufficient  to  this  purpose, 
as  he  also  doth  in  his  other  treatises,  particularly  de  Veritate.f 

3.  The  same  reasons  wliich  plead  for  inward  acts,  peculiarly  di' 
tected  to  this  end,  plead  for  outward  veneration  likewise.  If  we 
have  minds  capable  of  this  irnvtird  veneration,  so  are  we  capable  of 
outward  expressions  ;  and  are  under  the  same  obligation  to  employ 
those  latter  sorts  of  powers  to  the  honor  of  God,  that  binds  us  to 
the  former.  Nor  is  there  more  reason  wliy,  besides  that  transient 
regard  we  ought  to  paj'  him  in  all  our  actions,  there  should  be  inward 
acts  peculiarly  designed  to  express  our  inward  veneration,  than 
that  there  should  be  outward  stated  acts,  pecuUarly  designed  for  the 
aame  purpose. 

4.  The  nature  of  socidy  pleads  loudly  for  this.  Mankind  a? 
united  in  societies,  whether  lesser,  as  families,  or  greater,  as  other 
societies,  depend  entirely  on  God  ;  and  therefore  owe  him  rever- 
ence, and  the  expression  of  it  in  some  joint  and  fixed  way.  Public 
benefits  require  public  acknowledgments  :  and  this  sort  of  depen- 
dence on,  and  subjection  to  the  Deity,  should  certainly  have  suita-> 
ble  returns. 


'  Herbert  de  Veritate,  paj^e  271,  272. 

t  Herbert  de  Vcritale,  page  272.  J\''os  intsrea  ext;\mvm  ilium.  Dei  cultUm 
Csiib  aligua  reh'giotiis  specie  J  ex  omni  sectdo  regiov.e,  //etite  evicimus,—~"  In  the 
"  mean  time  we  have  proved  this  external  worship  of  God,  under  some  sp- 
**  pearaBce  of  relig-ion,  from  every  age,  country-  in-i  jinti'm" 


PRINCIPLES  OB'  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        8t 

5.  It  is  incontrollably  evident,  that  many  in  the  world  do  shalje 
«ff  all  regard  to  t}>€  Deity,  and  walk  in  an  open  defiance  to  him, 
and  those  laws  which  he  has  established.  Certainly,  therefore,  it  is 
the  duty  of  such  as  keep  firn),  o|>enly  to  testify  their  dependence 
on  and  regard  to  the  Deity,  which  is  not  suflSoienlly  done  by  the 
performance  of  those  things,  which  are  materially  according  to  the 
appointment  of  Gotl.  For  what  regard  to  God  there  is,  influencing 
':-  those  outward  acts,  cannot  be  clearly  discerned  by  on-lookers, 
Tvho  know  not  but  somewhat,  beside  any  regard  to  the  authority  of 
the  lawgiver,  may  be  at  the  bottom  of  all.  It  is  therefore  necessary 
that  there  be  public,  solemn  actions,  directly  and  plainlj'^  importing; 
our  avouchment  of  a  regard  to  him,  in  opposition  to  these  afTronis 
that  are  publicly  offered  to  him. 

6.  This  worship  is  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  and  cherish 
that  inward  vcncratiofi.  It  is  well  known,  howerer,  liowmuch  we  are 
bound  to  it,  yet  the  sense  of  this  obligation,  and  that  veneration  it- 
self to  which  we  are  obliged,  is  not  so  deeply  rivetted  upon  our 
minds,  but  it  needs  to  be  cherished,  and  the  habits  strengthened  by 
actings.  It  is  not  so  easy  for  men  to  do  this  by  inward  meditation, 
who  for  jnost  part  are  little  accustomed  to  this  way,  and  can  indeecJ 
scarce  fix  their  minds  in  this  inward  exercise  at  all,  especially  if  they 
have  no  fixed  way  of  exercising  it,  but  are  left  at  liberty  to  choose 
their  own  way.  Religion,  therefore,  must  go  out  of  the  world,  or 
there  must  be  stated  and  fixed  ways  of  exercising  it.  This  is  easi- 
ly justifiable  from  experience,  which  shews,  that  where  once  public  . 
worship  is  disregarded,  any  other  sort  of  respect  to  the  Deity 
quickly  (lills  of  its  own  accord. 

7.  It  is  necessmy  for  the  benejif  of  human  society.  The  founda- 
tions of  human  society  are  laid  upon  the  notion  of  a  God,  and  the 
sacredness  of  oaths,  and  the  fixed  notions  of  right  and  wrong, 
which  all  stand  and  fall  together.  Nor  is  there  any  way  of  keeping 
that  regard  to  tlwse  things  which  are  the  props  of  human  society, 
without  such  a  worship  of  God,  as  that  we  plead  for.  This  all  the 
lawgivers  of  old  were  satisfied  about,  and  took  measures  accord- 
ingly. 

8.  If  religion  has  any  valuable  end,  then  certainly  this  must  be 
one  main  part  of  it,  to  lead  man  to  future  happiness  ;  which  cannot, 
with  any  shew  of  reason,  be  alledged  to  consist  in  any  thing  be- 
sides the  aijof/ment  of  God.  And  it  is  plainly  ridiculous  to  sup- 
pose, that  mankind  can  be  kept  up  in  any  fixed  expectation  of,  or 
close  pursuit  after  this,  if  not  animated  and  encoui*aged  by  some, 
nay  frequent  experiences  of  commerce  betwixt  him  and  the  Deity 
here.  And  it  is  foolish  to  pretend,  that  this  is  otherwise  to  be  had, 
in  any  degree  ansAverable  to  this  end,  in  any  other  way  than  in  the 
"way  of  designed,  fixed,  solemn  and  stated  worship. 

11 


^2  AN  INWIRT  INTO  THE 

Now,  this  much  being  said  in  the  general  for  clearing  the  neces- 
sity of  such  a  Korship  and  the  impertance  of  it  in  religion ;  it  re- 
mains that  we  prove  the  light  of  nature  insufficient  to  direct  us  as  to 
the  way  of  it.  And  this  we  conceive  may  be  easily  made  appear 
from  the  ensuing  grounds. 

1 .  The  manifest  mistakes  all  the  world  fell  into,  who  were  left 
in  this  matter  to  the  conduct  of  tlie  mere  light  of  nature,  abundant- 
ly evince  the  incompetency  of  nature's  light  for  man's  direction, 
"with  respect  to  the  worship  of  God.  Every  nation  had  their  own 
way  of  worship,  and  that  stuffed  with  blasphemous,  unworthy,  ri- 
<liculous,  ungrounded,  impious  and  horrid  rites  and  usages  ;  of  which 
there  are  innumerable  accounts  every  where  to  be  met  with.  We 
can  no  where  in  the  Heathen  world  find  any  worship  that  is  not 
manifestly  unworthy  of,  and  injurious  to  the  glorious  God.  Surely 
that  light  that  suffered  the  world  to  lose  their  way  so  evidently, 
must  be  sadly  defective.  Their  worship  was  every  \<  here  such, 
even  where  wise  men  were  the  instituters  of  it,  that  it  could  not  sa- 
tisfy any  person  who  had  any  true  notion  of  God  ;  and  was  the 
scorn  of  the  wise  and  discerning.  Nor  can  it  with  any  shew  of 
reason  be  pleaded,  that  these  defects  and  enormities  are  to  be  charg- 
ed not  on  the  defectiveness  of  nahire''s  light,  but  the  negligence  of 
those  who  did  not  use  it  to  that  advantage  it  might  have  been  used  ; 
since  it  has  been  above  proven,  that  the  only  way  v.e  can  judge 
what  nature's  light  can  do,  is  by  considering  what  it  has  done  some- 
where or  other.  And  these  enormities  did  every  where  obtain : 
they  were  not  peculiar  to  some  places  ;  but  wherever  men  were 
left  to  the  mere  light  of  nature,  there  they  fell  into  them. 

2.  These  ways  of  worship,  viz.  prayer  and  praise,  which  are  con- 
descended upon  by  the  Deists,  and  seem  in  general  to  have  the 
countenance  of  reason  ;  yet,  as  they  are  discovered  by  nature's 
light,  can  no  way  satisfy.  Be  it  granted,  that  nature's  light  directs 
to  them  in  general,  and  binds  them  on  us  as  duty  ;  yet  it  must  be 
allowed,  that  this  is  not  enough  ;  for  the  difficulty  is,  how  we  shall 
in  particular  manage  them  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  our  own  ad- 
vantage.  The  duty  is  stated  in  the  general,  and  when  we  begin 
to  think  of  compliance  with  it,  we  find  the  light  of  nature,  like  the 
Egyptian  task-masters,  set  us  oiu-  work,  and  demand  brick,  while 
»  yet  it  allows  us  no  straw.  What  endless  difficulties  are  we  cast  in, 
about  the  matter  of  our  prayers  and  praises  ?  What  things  shall  we 
pi-ay  to  God,  and  praise  him  for  ?  How  shall  we  be  furnished  with 
Mich  discoveries  of  tlie  nature,  excellencies,  and  works  of  God  ; 
•;uid  what  things  are  proper  for  us,  as  may  be  sufficient  to  guide  us 
in  our  prayers  and  praises,  and  keep  us  up  in  a  close  attenda)ice  on 
these  duties  in  the  whole  tract  of  our  lives,  without  wearying  or 
fainting  ?  Are  wc,  because  we  know  not  what  is  good  or  ill  for  us, 
to  hold  in  mere  generals,  as  the  best  of  the  philosophers  thought  ? 


PRINCIPIiES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        8S 

If  so,  win  the  mind  of  man,  for  so  long  a  tract  of  time,  he  ablfe  to^ 
continue  in  this  general  way,  without  nauseating  ?  Or,  shall  we  de- 
scend to  particulars  ?  If  so,  how  shall  materials  be  furnished  to  ua 
Cor  such  particular  addresses,  who  know  so  little  of  God's  works,  or 
our  own  wants  7  Again,  who  shall  teach  us  the  way  and  manner  of 
praying  and  praising,  which  will  be  acceptable  to  God  ?  Shall  every 
one's  fancy  be  the  rule  ?  If  there  be  a  fixed  rule,  which,  and  where 
is  it  ?  Again,  What  security  have  we  from  the  more  light  of  na- 
ture, as  to  the  success  and  acceptance  of  these  duties  ?  It  will  be 
to  no  advantage  to  except,  that  God  requtres  of  us  no  more  than  he 
has  directed  us  in  ;  for  this  is  to  beg  the  main  question.  Were  it 
once  granted,  that  no  more  is  required  than  what  nature's  light  di- 
rects to,  there  might  be  some  countenance  for  this  plea,  that  when 
it  gives  no  directions  in,  will  not  be  insisted  upon,  by  God ;  but  fhis 
is  plainly  refused,  and  so  the  difiiculties  remain.  Nor  is  it  to  more 
advantage  to  pretend,  that  the  substance  being  agreed  to,  God  will 
not  insist  upon  circumstances  of  worship  :  for  the  diflSculties  ob- 
jected n'spect  not  merely  the  circumstances,  but  the  very  substan- 
tial parts  of  tliesc  duties.  As  to  what  may  be  pretended  of  the  in- 
fiuence  of  the  hopes  of  eternal  life,  towards  the  keeping  up  men  in 
an  attendance  on  duties  ;  as  to  the  particular  manner  of  the  per- 
fi)rmance  of  which,  and  the  grounds  of  acceptance,  they  are  entire- 
ly in  the  dark.  This  plea  shall  be  fully  considered  afterwards, 
and  as  it  is  obvious,  that  no  general  supposal  of  benefit  can  for  any 
long  tract  of  time  keep  men  steady  in  tlie  performance  of  action:.^^ 
ajjout  the  nature  and  acceptance  of  which  they  are  in  doubt ;  so,  it 
shall  be  made  appear  there  is  no  ground  from  the  mere  light  of  na- 
ture for  any  such  hope  of  future  felicity,  as  can  relieve  in  this 
case. 

3.  The  plain  confession  of  the  more  thoughtful,  wise  and  discern- 
ing of  the  Heathen  world,  plainly  proves  this.*  The  followers  of 
the  famed  Confucious  in  China,  though  they  own  that  there  is  one 
supreme  God,  yet  profess  themselves  ignorant  of  the  way  in  which 
he  is  to  Ire  woi'shipped,  and  therefore  think  it  safer  to  ab^stain  fioni 
worshipping,  than  err  in  the  assignation  of  improper  honour  to  him. 
Plato,  in  his  second  Alcibiades,  which  he  inscribes,  "  Of  Prayer," 
makes  it  his  business  to  prove,  "  that  we  know  not  Jiow  to  manage 
prayer ;"  and  therefore  concludes  it  "  safer  to  abstain  altogethei-, 
"  than  err  in  the  manner."'  Alcibiades  is  going  to  the  temple  to 
pray,  Socrates  meets  him,  dissuades  him,  and  proves  his  inability 
to  manage  the  duty,  of  which  he  is  at  length  convinced  ;  whereupon 
Socrates  concludes,  "  You  see,  says  lie,  that  it  is  not  at  all  safe 
**  for  you  to  go  and  pray  in  the  temple — I  am  therefore  of  tha 
"  mind  that  it  is  much  better  for  you  to  be  silent. — And  it  is  ne- 

•  Hornbcck  de  Conversione  Ctenliliiim,  Lib.  5.  C^p.  6.  p.ige  47 


\ 


84  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

<'  cessary  you  should  wait  for  some  person  to  teach  you  liow  yoir 
*'  ou2;ht  to  behave  yourselves,  both  towai-ds  the  gods  and  men.  To 
*'  which  Alcibiades  said,  and  when  will  that  time  come,  Socrates  ? 
*'  And  who  is  he  that  will  instruct  me  ?  With  what  pleasure  should 
**  I  look  on  him  ?  To  which  he  replio,?,  He  will  do  it  who  takes  a 
**  true  care  of  you.     But  methinks,  as  we  read  in  Homer,  that 
**  Minerva  dissipated  the  mist  that  covered  Diomedes,and  hindered 
>i(s    *'  him  from  distinguishing  a  God  from  a  man ;  so  it  is  necessary, 
4N,    **  that  he  should  in  the  first  place  scatter  the  daiicness  that  covers 
your  soul,  and  esftenvards  give  you  these  remedies  that  aie  neces- 
sary to  put  you  in  a  condition  of  discerning  good  and  evil ;  for  at 
J'     *'  present  you  know  not  hov/  to  make  a  difference.      Alcibiades 
%J      *'  says,  I  think  i  must  defer  my  sacrifice  to  that  tiuie.     Socrates 
^       **  approves — You  have  reason,  says  he  ;  it  is  more  safe  so  to  do, 
<i       *'  than  run  so  great  a  risk.*      The  famed  Epictetus  was  so  much 
i       **  of  the  same  mind,  that  he  knew  no  way  but  to  advise  every  one 
iy        "<  to  follow  the  custom  of  their  country  in  worship."f      Upon  the 
^        same  account  Seneca  rejects  all  this  worship.     And  memorable  i» 
t        the  confession  of  Jamblichus,  a  Platonic  philosopher,  who  lived  in 
the  fourth  century : — "  It  is  not  easy  to  know  what  God  will  be 
"  pleaaed  willi,  unless  we  be  either  immediately  instructed  by  God 
"  ourselves,  o}-  taught  by  swue  person  whom  God  hath  conversed 
*'  with,  or  arrive  at  the  knov/Iedge  of  it  by  some  divine  means  or 
-  othcr.";t      Thus  yc.i  see  ]iOW  much  these  jrieat  men  M'ere  be- 
iuisted  ia  this  mrdter,  and  may  easily  conclude  what  the  case  of 
the  rest  01  mankind  was. 7*^ 

4.  Th«  very  nature  of  the  thing  seems  to  plead  against  the  siif- 
jicieriC;/  of  reason  in  thh  point  :  for  it  seems  plainly  to  be  founded 
on  llw  clearest  notions  ol'  Jiajure's  li/ht,  that  the  worship  of  God  is 
to  be  regulated  by  the  tvUl  and  pha^m-i'.  of  God ;  which,  if  he  re- 
veal nof,  how  can  we  know  it  ?  Hence  it  was  tliat  the  Heathens 
never  pretriidjod  nffSOH,  but  always  7£i<elotion  for  their  worship. 
The  governors  all  of  them  did  tbi.='.  And  i*Iato  tells  us,  «  That 
*  hw:,  concerning  divine  matterrs  must  be  had  from  the  Delphick 
•'  Orai:if::;."ii       '  ^ 

I\luch  more  might  be  said  on  this  head,  were  it  needful  :  but  I 
am  ripprflsm^ive  thu  i:s  a  point  that  iiie  Deists  will  not  be  found  to 
"ISr  dispule  wiiii  us  ;  net  only  because  they  are  no  great  friend-;  to  this 
.rorshlpf  but  because  they  c.vn  say  ro  litlle  on  this  head,  Mhichhas 
any  shew  of  rearitm :  of  which  their  famed  kader  Herbert  was  suffi- 
ciently aware,  when  he  tells  us  in  hia  third  article.  That  virtue  is 

*  We  have  the  name  account,  cf  Sccralea  Senophoa;  cf   svhich  Stanky, 
p3!»e  73. 
•^  Kplctet.  Enchii-id.  Cap.  58, 
i  St-nec.-i  Epb.  9".  Jamb!   de  Vita  P>lhai:-   Cao.  23. 
#^  7!  P!ato  d*;  Ugiiins. 


PRINCIPLES  OB'  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        8i> 

the  principal  worship  of  God;  whereby  he  owns,  that  there  is  in- 
deed another  part  ot,  which  he  dare  not  name,  because  he  knows 
not  what  to  say  about  it. 


C  H  A  P.     VI. 

Proving  the  Insitfficienct/  of  Natural  Eeligion,  from  its  Defective- 
ness as  to  the  Discover^/  wherein  3Ian's  Happiness  lies. 

NEXT  to  the  glory  of  God^  the  indisputably  supreme  end  of 
man,  and  of  the  whole  creation,  of  which  I  &m  not  now  to  discourse, 
the  happiness  of  man,  is,  past  all  peradventure,  his  chief  end. 
Yea,  perhaps,  if  we  speak  properly,  except  as  abovesaid,  it  is  his 
cnlr/  end.  For  whatever  man  is  capable  of  designing,  is  compre- 
hended under  this,  being  either  what  dotJi,  or  at  least  is  judged  to 
contain  somewhat  of  happiness  in  it,  or  what  is  supposed  to  con- 
tribute to  that  wherein  satisf;iction  id  understood  to  consist.  Every 
thing  that  a  man  aims  at,  is  either  aimed  at  as  good  in  itself,  or 
contributing  to  our  good.  The  first  is  a  part  of  our  happiness  ; 
the  last  is  not  in  proper  speech  so  designed,  -but  the  good  to  which 
it  contributes,  and  that  still  is  as  before  a  part  of  our  happiness.  If 
religion  is  therefore  any  way  useful  or  sufficient,  it  must  be  so  with 
respect  to  this  end.  Ancl  since  religion  not  only  claims  some  re- 
gard from  man,  but  pleads  the  preference  to  all  other  things,  and 
demands  his  chief  concern,  and  his  being  employed  about  it  as  the 
main  business  of  his  life,  it  must  eitlier  contribute  more  toward 
this  end,  than  any  thing  else,  nay  be  able  to  lead  man  to  this  end, 
otherwise  it  deserves  not  that  regard  which  it  claims,  and  is  indeed 
of  little,  if  any  use  to  mankind.  If  then  we  are  able  to  evince  that 
natural  religion  is  not  sufficient  to  lead  man  to  that  happiness,  which 
all  men  seek,  and  is  indeed  the  chief  end  of  man,  there  will  be  no 
place  left  for  the  pretence  of  its  sufficiency,  in  so  far  as  it  is  the 
fiubject  of  this  controversy  betwixt  the  Deis-ts  and  us.  And  this? 
we  conceive  may  be  made  appear  many  ways.  But  in  this  chapter 
we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  one  of  them . 

If  nature's  light  is  not  able  to  give  any  tolerable  discovery  of  that 
wherein  man's  happiness  lies,  and  that  it  may  by  him  be  obtained, 
then  surf  ly  it  can  never  furnish  him  with  a  religion  that  is  able  to 
conduct  him  to  it.  This  cannot  with  any  shew  of  reason  be  deni- 
ed. It  remains  therefore  that  I  make  appear,  that  nature's  light  iy 
■not  able  to  discover  wherein  man's  happiness  lies,  and  its  ailaina- 
bleness.  Now  this  I  think  ia  fully  made  out  by  the  following  cgr- 
siderations : 


86  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

1.  They  who  being  left  to  the  conduct  of  the  mere  light  of  nature, 
have  sought  after  that  g"03i  wherein  man's  happiness  is  to  be  had, 
could  not  come  to  any  agreement  or  consistency  among  themselves. 
This  is  a  point  of  the  first  importance,  as  being  the  hinge  whereon 
the  whole  of  a  man's  life  musi  turn  ;  tlie  spring  which  must  set  a 
man  a  going,  and  give  life  to  all  his  actions,  and  to  this  they  must 
all  be  directed.  This,  if  any  other  thing  onglit  to  be  easily  known ; 
and  if  nature's  light  is  a  sufficient  guide,  it  must  give  evident  dis- 
coveries of.  But,  methinks,  here  is  a  great  sign  of  a  want  of  thi* 
evidence  ;  great  men,  learned  men,  v/ise  philottophers  and  industri- 
ous seaj'chers  of  truth  have  split  upon  this  point,  into  an  endless 
variety  of  opinions  ;  insomuch  that  Varro  pretends  to  reckon  up 
no  less  than  288  different  opinions.  May  I  not  now  use  the  argu- 
ment of  one  of  the  Deists,  in  a  case  which  he  falsely  supposes  to 
be  alike,  and  thus  in  his  own  words  argue  upon  this  point,  (only 
putting  in,  the  discoveries  of  nafiwe^s  li^ht  about  happiness^  or  the 
evidence  of  those  discoveries,  in  place  of  the  evidence  of  the  reasons 
of  the  Christian  religion^  against  which  he  argues) :  "  If  the  dis- 
"  covcrles  of  it  were  evident,  there  couUl  be  no  longer  any  con- 
**  tention  or  difference  about  the  chief  good  ;  all  men  would  em- 
"  brace  the  same  and  acquiesce  in  it :  no  prejudice  would  prevail 
*•  against  the  certainty  of  such  a  good."*  '•'  It  is  exery  man's 
**  greatest  bupinf  r-s  here  to  laboar  for  his  happiness,  and  conse- 
"  qtiently  none  would  be  backward  to  know  it.  And,  if  all  do  not 
"  agree  in  it,  those  marks  of  truth  in  it  are  not  visible,  which  are 
•'  necessary  to  draw  an  assent."f  But  wiutever  there  is  in  this,  it 
h  a  most  certain  argument  of  darkncs^,  that  tiiere  is  so  great  a  dif- 
ference, where  the  seai-cher.'^  are  many,  it  is  evi^ry  one's  interest 
to  find,  and  the  business  and  search  is  plied  with  great  applica- 
tion. 

2.  The  greatest  of  the  philosophers  have  been  plainly  mistaken 
itl  it.  They  espoused  opinions  in  thi^  matter,  which  are  not  capa- 
ble of  any  tolerable  defence.  Solon,  the  A-henian  lar/giver,  defin- 
ed them  "  happy  who  are  conipetenily  fin-ni^hed  with,  outward 
"  things,  act  honestly  and  live  temperately."i  Socrates  held,  that 
tliere  was  but  one  chief  good,  which  is  knon'fcdgc,  if  vfe  may  be- 
lieve Diogenes  Laerlius  in  his  life.  Aristotle,  if  we  ma}''  t^ke  the- 
same  author's  words  for  it,  places  it  ]\\  virtne,  health  ^nd  outward 
eonveniencj/,  which  no  doubt  was  his  opinion,  since  he  ap»)roved 
Solon's  definition  of  the  chief  good;\\  and  herein  he  was  followed 
by  his  numerous  school.  Pythagoras  tells  us,  that  the  "  knowledge 
"  of  the  perfections  of  the  soul  is  the  chief  good."     It  is  true,  he 

.  *  Oracles  of  Reason,  page  206. 
f  Jhid,  page  201. 

i  Stanley,  pag-e  26.  Life  of  Solon,  Cap.  9. 
II  Stanley,  page  540. 


PRINCIPLES  OV  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        Si 

teems  at  other  times  to  speak  somewhat  differently ;  of  which  we 
may  speak  afterwards.  Zeno  tells  us,  that  it  lies  in  "  living  ac- 
♦'  cording;  to  nature.  Cleanthes  adds,  that  "  accordin^!;  to  nature 
'*  is  according  to  virtue."  Crysippus  tells  us,  that  it  is  "  to  live 
"  according  to  expert  knowledge  of  things  which  happen  naturally."* 
It  is  needless  to  spend  time  in  reckoning  up  innumerable  ethers, 
who  all  run  tlie  same  way,  placing  happiness  in  that  which  is  not 
able  to  afford  it,  as  being  finite,  of  short  continoance,  fickle  and 
inicertain.  It  is  not  my  design  to  confute  those  several  opinions. 
It  is  evident  to  any  one,  that  they  are  all  confined  to  time,  and  up- 
on this  very  account  fail  of  what  can  make  us  happy. 

3.  They  who  seem  to  come  some  nearer  the  matter,  and  talk 
sometimes  of  copformili/  lo  God  being  the  chief  good  ;  that  it  is 
our  end  to  be  like  God,  and  the  like  ;  as  Pythagoras  and  some 
others  ;f  but  especially  Plato,  who  goes  further  than  any  of  the 
rest  ;J  yet  cannot  justly  be  aljedged  to  have  made  the  discovery, 
because  wc  have  not  any  account  of  their  opinions  clearly  deliver- 
ed by  themselves,  but  hints  here  and  there  gathered  up  from  their 
writijigs,  which  are  veiy  far  from  satisfying  us  as  to  their  mmd.— 
Besides  they  are  so  variable,  and  express  themselves  so  different- 
Jy,  in  different  places,  that  it  is  hard  to  find  their  mind  ;  nay  I  may 
add,  they  are,  industriously  and  of  design  obscure.  This  Alcinous 
the  Platonic  philosopher,  tells  us  plainly  enotigh  in  his  Docirine  of 
Plafo,  which  is  inserted  at  length  in  Stanley's  lives.  He  says, 
"  that  he  thought  the  discovery  of  the  chief  good  was  not  easy, 
"  and  if  it  were  found  out,  it  was  not  safe  to  be  declared."  And 
that  for  this  reason,  he  did  communicate  his  thoughts  about  it  but 
to  very  few,  and  those  of  his  most  intimate  acquaintance.  Now  the 
plain  meaning  of  all  this,  in  my  opinion  is,  that  he  could  not  tell 
wherein  man's  happiness  consists,  or  M'hat  that  is  which  is  able  to 
afford  it :  or  at  most,  that  though  one  way  or  other  in  his  travels, 
by  his  studies  or  conveise,  he  had  got  some  notions  about  it ;  yet 
he  did  not  sufficiently  understand  them,  and  was  not  able  to  satisfy 
himself  or  otliers  about  them,  and  that  therefore,  he  either  entirely 
snppress^ed,  or  would  not  plainly  speak  out  his  thoughts,  least  the 
world  should  see  his  ignorance,  and  that  though  his  words  differed, 
yci  in  very  deed  he  knew  no  more  of  the  matter  than  otliers.  For 
to  say,  that,  upon  supposition  that  his  discoveries  had  been  satisfy- 
ing as  to  truth  and  clearness,  and  that  he  was  capable  to  prove  and 
explain  them,  they  were  not  fit  to  be  made  known  to  the  world,  is 
to  spc  nk  the  grossest  of  nonsense ;  for  nothing  was  so  necessary  to 
be  known,  and  known  universally,  as  the  chief  good,,  which  every 

*  Stanley,  pajre  462. 

f  IbiiJ,  pupe  541. 

4   !!>.■<!,  p.<gc  ^P?,  Cap.  S. 


88  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

one  is  obliged  to  seek  after.  To  know  this,  'and  conceal  the  disco- 
very, is  the  most  malicious  and  invidious  thing  that  can  be  thought 
of.  And  rather  than  charge  this  on  Plato,  I  think  it  safer  to  charge 
ignorance  on  him.  lie  speaks  somewhat  liker  truth  than  others, 
while  he  tells  us,  "  That  happiness  consists  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
**  chief  good  ;  that  philosophers,  wlio  are  sufficiently  purified,  are 
"  allowed,  after  the  dissolution  of  their  bodies,  to  sit  down  at  the 
"  table  of  the  Gods,  and  view  the  field  of  truth  ;  that  to  be  made 
"  like  God  is  the  chief  good  ;  that  to  follow  God  is  the  chief  good." 
Some  such  other  expressions  we  find.  But  what  does  all  this  say  ? 
Does  it  inform  us  that  Plato  understood  our  happiness  to  consist  in 
the  eternal  enjoyment  of  God  ?  Some,  who  are  loth  to  think  that 
Plato  missed  any  truth  of  importance  which  is  contained  in  the 
scripture,  think  so  :  But  for  my  part,  I  see  no  reason  to  convince 
me  from  all  this,  that  Piato  understood  any  thing  tolerably  about  the 
enjoyment  of  God,  either  in  time  or  after  time,  or  that  he  vras  fix- 
ed and  determined  wherein  the  happiness  of  man  consists,  or  that 
really  any  such  state  of  future  felicity  is  certainly  attainable.  All 
this  was  only  a  heaven  of  his  own  framing  and  fancy,  fitted  for  phi- 
losophers ;  for  the  being  of  wliich,  he  could  give  no  tolerable  argu- 
ments. And  all  this  account  satisfies  me  no  more  that  Plato  under- 
stood wherein  happiness  consists,  than  the  following  does,  that  he 
linew  the  way  of  reaching  it,  which  I  shall  transcribe  from  the  same 
chapter  o(  Alcinoiis^s  doctrine  of  Plato :  "  Beatitude  is  a  good  habit 
"  of  the  genius,  and  this  similitude  to  God  we  shall  obtain,  if  we  en- 
^*  joy  convenient  nature,  in  our  manner,  education  and  sense,  ac- 
"  cording  to  law,  and  chiefly  by  reason  and  discipline,  and  institu- 
*'  tion  of  wisdom,  withdrawing  ourselves  as  much  as  is  possible  from 
*•  human  affairs,  and  being  conversant  in  these  things  only  which  are 
"  understood  by  contemplation  :  the  way  to  prepare,  and  as  it  werc> 
**  to  cleanse  the  demon  that  is  in  us,  is  to  initiate  ourselves  Into  high- 
**  er  disciples ;  which  is  done  by  music,  arithmetic,  astronomy  and 
"  geometry,  not  v.'ithout  some  respect  of  the  body,  by  gymnastic, 
"  whereby  it  is  made  more  ready  for  the  actions  both  of  r/ar  and 
**  peace."  I  pretend  not  to  nnderstand  him  liere  :  But  this  I  un- 
derstandfrom  him,  that  one  of  three  is  certain,  either  he  understood 
jiot  himself,  or  had  no  mind  that  others  should  understand  ;  cr  that 
he  was  the  most  unmeet  man  in  the  world  to  instruct  mankind  about 
this  important  point,  and  to  explain  things  about  which  the  world 
Tras  at  a  loss.  When  men  speak  at  this  rate,  we  may  put  what 
meaning  we  please  upon  their  words. 

4.  It  is  plain  that  none  of  them  have  clearly  come  to  know  them- 
selves, or  inform  others  that  happiness  is  not  to  he  had  here;  that  it 
consists  in  the  eternal  enjoyment  of  God  after  time :  and  that  this 
is  atiainahle.  These  ai*e  things  wlicreabout  there  is  a  deep  silence, 
aot  so  much  as  a  word  of  them,  far  less  any  proof.      If  ever  we 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        «9 

were  to  expect  such  a  thlnj^  we  might  look  for  it  from  those  who 
have  not  merely  touched  at  this  subject  by  the  bye,  and  in  dark 
hints,  but  have  discoursed  of  moral  ends,  on  set  purpose,  such  as 
Cicero  and  Seneca.  Cicero  frequently  tells,  that  he  designed  to 
enrich  his  native  country  with  a  translation  of  all  that  was  valua- 
ble in  the  Greek  philosophers,  he  had  perused  them  for  this  end, 
and  thus  accomplished,  he  sets  himself  to  write  of  moial  ends^ 
which  he  does  in  five  books.  Here  we  may  expect  somewhat  to 
the  purpose  :  But  if  we  do  we  are  disappointed.  The  first  book 
sets  off  Epicure's  opinion  about  Mppiness  with  a  great  deal  of  rhet- 
oric The  second  overthrows  it.  The  third  represents  the  Stoic's 
opinion.  And  the  fourth  confutes  it.  The  Jijth  represents  and 
asserts  the  Peripatetic's  opinion,  which  had  been  as  easily  over- 
thrown as  any  of  them.  And  this  is  all  you  are  to  expect  here, 
without  one  word  of  God,  the  enjoi/ment  of  him,  or  any  thing  of 
that  kind,  which  favours  of  a  life  after  this.  Seneca  writes  again,  a 
book  de  Vila  BeatcL,  consisting  of  thirty-two  chapters.  Here  we 
may  find  somewhat  possibly.  And  indeed  if  one  should  hear  him 
state  the  question,  as  he  does  in  his  second  chapter,  he  would  ex- 
pect some  great  matters  from  him.  Qiiaramus  quid  oplime  factum 
sit,  non  quid  usitatissimum :  Et  quid  nos  inpossessionefelicitatis 
aterncR  constituat,non  quid  vidgo,  veritatis  j)cssinio  interprcti,  pro- 
halum  sit.  Vulgus  autem  tarn  chlumydatos,  quam  coronam  voco.^ 
What  may  we  not  now  expect  ?  But  after  this,  I  assure  you,  yoii 
are  to  look  for  no  more  words  about  eternity,  nor  any  thing  more, 
but  a  jejune  discourse  in  pretty  sentences,  about  the  Stoic's  opin- 
ion, representing  that  a  man  would  be  happy,  if  his  passions  were 
extinct,  and  he  was  perfectly  pleased  with  the  condition  he  is  in,  be 
it  what  it  will.  Now  after  this,  who  can  dream  that  nature^'s  light  is 
sufficient  to  satisfy  here  ?  Is  every  man  able  to  discover  that  which 
philosophers,  the  greatest  of  them,  after  the  greatest  application, 
failed  so  signally  about,  that  scarcely  any  of  them  came  near  it,  and 
none  of  them  reached  it  ? 

5.  Nor  will  it  appear  strange,  that  the  Heathen  philosophers  of 
old  should  be  so  much  at  a  loss  about  future  happiness,  to  any  one 
who  considers  how  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  it  must  be  for  any, 
who  rejects  revelation,  and  betakes  himself  to  the  mere  light  of  na- 
ture, to  arrive  at  the  wished  for,  and  necessary  assurance  of  eter- 
nal felicity  after  this  life,  even  at  this  present  time,  after  all  the 
great  improvements,  which  the  rational  proofs  of  a  future  state  have 
obtained,  since  Christianity  prevailed  in  the  world.      If  nature's 

*,  "  l-et  lis  inquire  what  is  best  to  be  done,  and  not  wliat  is  most  common  ; 
"  and  what  puts  us  in  possession  of  eternal  felicity,  and  not  wliat  is  approved 
"  by  the  vulg-ar — the  worst  judges  of  truth.  By  the  vulgar  I  mean  the  rich 
"  and  jpreat  men,  as  wellaa  the  mob," 

12 


eo  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

light,  now  tiii&r  its  highest  improvements,  proves  unable  to  affor4 
full  assurance,  and  still  leaves  us  to  fluctuate  in  uncertainty  about 
future  happiness  ;  no  wonder  that  they  should  be  in  the  dark,  who 
were  strangers  to  these  improvements. 

That  the  arguments  for  a  future  state,  since  Christianity  obtain- 
ed, have  received  a  vast  improvement  from  Christian  divines  and 
philc»sophers,  cannot  modestly  be  denied.  The  performances  of 
Plato  and  Cicero,  on  this  point,  which  were  the  best  among  the 
ancients,  are,  when  compared  with  our  late  Christian  writers,  but 
like  the  trif.es  of  a  boy  at  school,  or  the  nide  essays  of  a  novice, 
in  comparison  to  tlie  most  elaborate  and  complete  performances  of 
the  greatest  masters  ;  if  they  bear  even  the  same  proportion.  He 
who  knows  not  this,  knows  nothing  in  these  matters.  Yea,  to  that 
degree  have  they  impreven  those  arguments,  that  it  is  utterly  im- 
pofivible^  for  any  man,  who  gives  all  their  reasons  for  the  continu- 
ance of  the  soul  after  death,  with  their  answers  to  the  trifling  pre- 
tences of  the  opposers  of  this  conclusion,  a  fair  hearing  and  due 
consideration,  to  acquiesce  rationally  in  the  contrary  assertion  of 
Atheists  and  mortal  Deists  ;  or  not  to  favour,  at  least  this  opinion, 
as  what  is  highly  probable,  if  not  absolutely  certain. 

But  after  all,  if  we  are  left  to  seek  assurance  of  this  from  the 
vnassisted  light  of  nature,  that  certainly  God  has  provided  for,  and 
will  actually  bestow  npon  man^  and  more  especially  man  who  is 
now  a  sinner,  future  and  eternal  felicity,  ^ve  will  ftnd  ourselves 
plunged  into  inextricable  difficulties,  out  of  which  the  light  of  na- 
ture will  find  it  very  difBcult,  if  not  impossible  to  extricate  us.  It  i.^ 
one  thing  to  be  persuaded  of  the  futui'e  separate  subsistence  of  our 
souls  after  death,  and  another  to  know  in  what  condition  they  shall 
be  ;  and  yet  more  to  be  assured,  that  fffcr  dvnfh  our  souls  shall 
be  possessed  of  eternal  happiness.  It  is  precisely  about  this  lajrt 
point  tiiat  we  are  now  to  speak.  The  arguments  drawn  from  na- 
1  tire's  light  \vill  scarce  fix  us  in  the  steady  persuasion  of  future  and 
eternal  felicity.  There  is  a  great  odds  betwixt  our  knovrledge  of 
future  punishments,  and  the  grounds  whereby  we  are  led  to  it,  and 
our  persuasion  of  future  and  cterual  rewards.  Upon  inquiry  the 
like  reasons  will  not  be  found  for  both.  Our  notices  alxjut  eternal 
rewards,  when  the  promises  of  it  contained  in  the  scriptures  are  set 
aside,  will  be  found  liable  to  many  objections,  hardly  to  be  solved 
by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  which  do  not  so  much  aflfcct  the  proofs 
advanced  for  future  punishments.  Besides,  sijice  the  entrance  of 
sin,  its  universal  prevalence  in  the  world,  and  the  consequences 
following  upon  it,  have  so  long  benighted  man,  as  to  any  knowledge 
that  he  otherwise  might  have  had  about  eternal  iKipTiiness,  that  now 
it  will  be  found  a  matter  of  the  utmost  ditlicult}',  if  not  a  pl;nn  im- 
possibility, for  him  to  reach  assurance  of  eternal  iVll'^i'^^'  '>■"  *he 
mere  light  of  nature,  however  Improven. 


S        PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        91 

The  pleas  drawn  from  the  holiness  ariA  justice  of  God,  say  much 
for  the  certain  punishment,  after  this  life<  of  many  noli>rious  offen- 
ders, who  have  wholly  escaped  punishment  here  ;  especially  as 
they  are  strengthened  by  other  collateral  considerations  clearing 
and  enforcing  them. 

But  whether  the  pleas  for  future  and  eternal  rewards,  from  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  God  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  the  sufferings 
of  persons  really  guihy  of  sin,  but  in  comparison  of  others  virtu- 
ous, on  the  other;  will  with  equal  firmness  conclude,  that  God  is 
obliged  to,  OT  certainly  will,  reward  their  imperfect  virtue,  and 
compensate  their  sufferings,  may,  and  perhaps  not  without  reason, 
be  questioned. 

That  it  is  congruous  that  virtue  should  be  rewardedl^  may  per- 
haps easily  be  granted.  But,  what  that  reward  is,  which  it  may 
from  divine  justice  or  bounty  claim,  it  will  not  be  easy  for  us  to 
determine,  if  we  have  no  other  guide  than  the  mere  Fight  of  na- 
ture. The  man  who  perfectly  performs  his  duty  is  secured  against 
the  fears  of  punishment,  and  has  reason  to  rest  fully  assured  of 
God's  acceptance  and  approbation  of  what  is  every  way  agreeable 
to  his  will.  He  has  a  perfect  inward  cairn  in  his  own  conscience, 
is  disturbed  with  no  challenges,  and  has  the  satisfaction  and  inward 
complacency,  resulting  from  his  having  acquitted  himself  accordin"; 
to  his  duty  :  His  conscience  assures  him  he  has  done  r.othing  to 
provoke  God  to  withdraw  favours  already  given,  or  to  w  Ithhoki 
further  favours.  And  though  he  cannot  easily  see  reason  to  think 
God  obliged,  either  to  continue  what  he  freely  gave,  or  accumu- 
late'further  eflfects  of  bounty  upon  him,  or  to  protract  his  happiness 
to  eternity ;  yet  he  has  the  satisfaction  of  knowing,  tliat  he  halli. 
not  rendered  himself  unworthy  of  any  favour.  This  reward  is  the 
necessary  and  unavoidable  consequence  of  perfect  obedienre. 

But  this  comes  not  up  to  the  point..  That  which  the  light  of  na- 
ture must  assure  us  of  is,  That  virtuous  men,  on  account  of  their 
virtue,  may  claim  and  expect,  besides  this,  a  further  reward,  and 
that  of  no  less  consequence  than  eternal  felicity.  Now,  if  I  mis- 
take it  not,  when  the  promise  of  God,  which  cannot  be  knovra 
without  revelation,  is  laid  aside,  the  mere  light  of  nature  will  find  it: 
difficult  to  fix  upon  solid  grounds,  for  any  assurance  as  to  this. 
Many  thorny  difficulties  must  be  got  through.  Not  a  feiv  per- 
plexing questions  must  be  solved.  If  it  is  said,  that  tlie  justice  of 
God  necessarily  obliges  him,  besides  that  reward  necessarily  result- 
ing from  perfect  obedience,  (of  which  above,)  further  to  recom- 
pence,  even  the  most  exact  and  peifect  performance  of  our  duty, 
antecedently  to  any  promise  given  to  that  effect,  with  future  and 
eternal  felicity  ;  it  may  be  inquired,  IIow  it  shall  be  mule  appear 
that  virtue,  suppose  it  to  be  as  perfect  as  you  will,  can  be  said  tcx 
mirif,  and  to  merit  so  great  a  reward  ?  May  not  God,  without  in- 


92  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

justice,  turn  to  nothing  an  innocent  creature  ?  Sure  I  am,  no  mean 
nor  incompetent  judges  have  thought  so.*  Where  is  the  injustice 
of  removing  or  taking  away  what  he  freely  gave,  "and  did  not  pro- 
mise to  continue  ?  Is  it  modest  or  safe  for  us,  without  the  most  con- 
vincing evidences  of  the  inconsistency  of  the  thing,  to  limit  the 
power  of  God,  or  put  a  cannot  on  the  Almighty.  And  does  not 
the  very  possibility  of  the  annihilation  of  an  innocent  creature,  in  a 
consistency  with  justice,  though  God,  for  other  reasons,  should  ne- 
ver think  fit  to  do  it,  entirely  enervate  this  plea  ?  If  God,  Avithout 
injustice,  may  take  away  the  being  of  an  innocent  creature,  how  is 
it  possible  to  evince,  that  in  justice,  he  must  reward  it  with  efcrnal 
happiness  ?  Again,  if  we  may,  for  our  virtue,  claim  eternal  felici- 
ty, as  due  in  justice,  may  it  not  be  inquired,  What  exercise  of  vir* 
tue — for  how  long  a  time  continued — ^is  sufficient  to  give  us  this 
title  to  eternal  rewards  ?  If  the  bounty  and  goodness  of  God  is  in- 
sisted on,  as  the  ground  of  this  claim,  the  plea  of  justice  seems  to 
be  deserted.  And  here  again  it  may  be  inquired.  Whether  the 
goodness  of  God  is  necessary  in  its  egress  ?  Whether  the  bounty 
of  God  ought  not  to  be  understood  to  respect  those  things  which 
3.re  absolutely  at  the  giver's  pleasure  to  grant  or  withhold  ?  Whe- 
ther, in  such  mattei^s,  we  can  be  assured  that  bounty  will  give  us 
Ibis  or  that,  which,  though  we  Mant,  is  not  injustice  due,  nor  secur- 
ed to  us  by  any  promise  ?  Further,  it  may  be  inquired  how  far* 
must  goodness  extend  iiielf  as  to  rewards  ?  Is  it  not  supposablc,  that 
it  may  stop  short  of  eternal  felicity,  and  think  a  less  rewaid  sufB- 
cient  ?  Of  so  great  weight  have  these,  and  the  like  difiiculties  ap- 
peared to  not  a  few,  and  those  not  of  th.e  more  stupid  sort  of  man- 
kind, that  they  have  not  doubted  to  assert  boldly,  that  even  inno- 
cent man,  without  revelation,  and  a  positi^^e  promise,  could  never 
Ibe  assured  of  eternal  rev/ards.  And  how  the  light  of  nature  can 
disengage  us  from  these  difficulties,  were  man  perfectly  innocent,  I 
do  not  well  understand. 

But  whatever  there  is  of  this,  the  entrance  of  sin  and  the  con- 
sideration of  man's  case  as  involved  in  guilty  has  cast  us  upon  new 
and  yet  greater  difficulties.  From  this  present  condition  wlierein 
we  find  all  mankind  without  exception  involved,  a  whole  shoal  of 
difficulties  emerge,  never,  I  am  afraid,  to  be  removed  by  imassis^ 
ed  reason. 

Now  it  may  be  inquired,  what  obedience  is  it  that  can  entitle  us 
to  eternal  felicity  ?  If  none  save  that  which  is  perfect  will  serve. 
V.  ho  shall  be  the  belter  for  this  reward  ?  Who  can  pretend  to  this 
perfect  or  sinless  obedience  ?  If  imperfect  obedience  may,  how 
shall  we  be  sure  of  this?  How  shall  he  who  deserves  punishment. 


*  See  the  Excellency  of  Theology,  Sec.  by  T.  TL  R.  Boil,  pag-e  25,  '26,  27, 
&c.  :md  Consid.  about'thc  Eecoii.  oi"  Rea'-:ca"ai)d  lltl.  W  T.  E.  page  21,22. 


.     PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        93 

claim,  demand  and  expect  reward^  a  great  reward,  yea,  the  greatest 
reward — eternal  happiness  ?  If  the  goodness  of  God  is  pleaded, 
and  it  is  said,  that  though  we  cannot  expect  in  strict  justice  to  have 
our  imperfect  obedience  rewarded  ;  yet  we  may  hope  it  from  the 
bounty  of  God  ?  Besides,  what  was  above  moved  against  this,  in  a 
more  plausible  case,  when  we  were  speaking  of  innocent  man,  it 
may  be  further  inquired,  whether,  though  infinite  bounty  might 
deal  thus  graciously  with  man,  if  he  were  perfectly  righteous,  it  may 
not  yet  withhold  its  fovours,  or  at  least  stop  short  of  eternal  felicity, 
with  the  best  among  sinner:?  ?  Again,  what  degree  of  imperfection 
is  it  that  will  prejudge  this  claim  ?  What  may  consist  with  it  ? 
Who  is  good  in  that  sense,  which  is;  necessary  to  qualify  him  for 
this  expectation  ?  Is  there  any  such  person  existent  ?  What  way 
shall  we  be  sure  of  this  ?  Is  it  to  be  measured  by  outward  actions 
only,  or  are  inward  principles  and  aims  to  come  in  consideration  ? 
Who  can  know  these  save  God  ?  If  it  be  said,  we  can  know  our- 
selves to  be  such  :  I  ansAver,  how  shall  we  maintain  any  confidence 
of  future,  nay  eternal  rewards,  while  conscience  tells  that  we  de- 
serve punishment  ?  What  if  by  the  mere  light  of  nature  vre  can 
never  be  assured  of  forgiveness  ?  How  sliall  we  then  by  it,  be  sure 
of  eternal  rewards  ?  If  we  are  not  rewarded  here,  how  can  Me  know, 
but  that  it  has  been  for  our  'i-ins  that  good  things  have  been  with- 
held from  us  ?  May  not  this  be  presumed  to  be  the  consequence 
of  our  knov/n  sins,  or  more  covei  t  evils,  which  self-love  has  made 
us  overlook  ?  If  we  suffer,  yet  do  we  suffer  more  than  our  sins 
deserve,  or  even  so  much  ?  If  we  think  so,  will  w^e  be  sustained 
competent  judges  of  the  quality  of  offences,  and  their  demerit, 
which  are  done  against  God,  especially  when  we  are  the  actors  ? 
To  whom  does  it  belong  to  judge  ?  If  we  meet  with  some  part, for 
yc  can  never  prove  it  is  all,  of  demerit  or  deserved  punishment  of 
your  sins  here,  will  this  conclude  that  ye  shall  be  exempted  from 
suffering  what  further  God  may  in  justice  think  due  to  them,  and 
you  on  their  account  hereafter  ?  W  hat  security  have  ye  that  yc 
shall  escape  with  what  h  indicted  on  you  here  ?  And  not  only  so, 
but  instead  of  meeting  with  what  ye  fuithcr  deserve,  obtain  rewards 
which  ye  dare  scarcely  say  ye  deserve  ?  If  God  spare  at  present  a 
noted  offender,  who  cannot  without  violence  to  reason  be  supposed 
a  subject  meet  for  pardon  or  for  a  reward,  and  reserve  the  who'e 
punishments  due  to  his  crimes,  to  the  other  vrorld ;  but  in  the 
mean  while,  sees  meet  to  inflict  present  punishment  on  thee,  thojjgh 
less  criminal,  perhaps  to  convince  the  world,  that  even  lesser  offen- 
ders shall  not  escape  ;  if,  I  say,  he  deal  thus,  is  there  no  way  fl>r 
clearing  his  justice,  but  by  conferring  eternal  happiness  on  thee  T 
Why,  if  he  inflict  what  further  punishment  is  due  to  thee,  in  exact 
proportion  to  thy  less  atrocious  crimes  ;  and  punish  the  other  with 
ey'ik  proportioned  to  his  more  ati-ccious  crimes,  and  make  him  up  by 


94  AN  irvQUlRY  INTO  THE 

the  severity  of  the  stroke  for  the  delay  of  the  punishment ;  if  I 
Bay,  thus  he  do,  I  challenge  any  man  to  tell  lue  where  the  injustice 
lies !  And  may  not  the  like  be  said  as  to  any  other  virtuous  person, 
or  whom  thou  supposest  to  be  such,  who  meets  with  sufTerings  ? 

Nor  do  less  perplexing  difEcuIlies  attend  those  other  pleas  for  fu- 
ture happiness  to  man,  at  least,  in  his  present  coiuiiiion;  which  are 
drawn  from  God  creating  us  capable  of  future  happiness,  implanting 
desires,  and  giving  us  gusts  of  it :  All  which  would  be  given  iii 
vain,  if  there  was  no  happiness  designed  for  man  after  time. 

But  how  by  this  we  can  be  secured  of  eternal  happiness,  I  do 
not  well  see.  Nor  do  I  understand  how  the  difficulties  which  may 
be  moved  against  this,  can  be  resolved.  It  may  be  inquired,  whe- 
ther this  desire  of  happiness,  said  to  be  implanted  in  our  natures,  is 
really  any  thing  distinct  from  that  natural  tendency,  of  the  crea- 
ture to  its  own  perfection  and  preservation,  which  belongs  to  the 
being  of  every  creature,  witli  such  difference  as  to  degrees  and  the 
manner,-  as  their  respective  natures  require  ?  If  it  is  no  more  than 
this,  it  must  be  allowed  essential  to  every  rational  creature  :  And 
if  every  rational  creature  has  an  essential  attribute,  which  infers  an 
obligation  on  God  to  provide  for  it  eternal  happiness,  and  put  it  in 
possession  of  this  felicity,  if  no  fault  intervene,  doth  it  not  thence 
necessarily,  follow,  that  God  cannot  possibly,  without  injustice,  turn 
to  nothing  any  innocent  rational  creature  ;  nay,  nor  create  any 
one,  which  it  is  possible  for  him  again  to  annihilate  without  injus- 
tice ?  For  if  we  should  suppose  it  possible  for  God  to  do  so,  and 
thus  without  injustice  frustrate  this  desire,  where  is  the  force  of  the 
argument  ?  And  is  it  not  a  little  bold  to  limit  God  thus  ?  I  need 
not  enter  into  the  debate,  whether  there  is  any  supposable  case, 
vherein  infinite  wisdom  may  think  it  fit  to  do  so ?  That  dispute  is 
a  little  too  nice  :  For  on  the  one  hand,  it  will  be  hard  for  us  to  de- 
termine it  positively,  that  infinite  wisdom  must,  in  any  case  we  can 
suppose,  think  it  fit  to  destroy  or  turn  to  nothing  an  innocent  crea- 
ture ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  rash  to  assert,  that  our 
not  knowing  any  case,  proves  that  really  there  is  none  such  known 
to  the  only  wise  God.  Besides,  if  we  allow  it  only  possible,  in  a 
consistency  with  justice  and  veracity,  for  God  to  do  it,  I  am  afraid 
the  argument  has  lost  its  force.  Further,  it  may  be  inquired,  whe- 
ther the  rational  creature  can  in  duty  desire  an  eternal  continuation 
in  being,  otherwise  than  with  the  deepest  submission  to  the  sove- 
reign pleasure  of  God,  where  he  has  given  no  positive  promise?  If 
submission  belongs  to  It,  all  ccrtninty  vanishes,  and  v.'e  miii-i  look 
elsewhere  for  assurance  of  eternal  happiness.  A  desire  of  it,  if 
God  see  meet  to  give  it,  can  never  prove  that  certainly  he  will  give 
it.  If  it  is  said,  that  the  creature  without  submission  or  f  ujlt  may 
insist  upon  and  claim  eternd  happiness  ;  I  do  not  see  how  this  can 
ha  pz'cven. 


PRL\Cr?LES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        95 

But  again,  do  not  these  desires  respect  the  whole  man,  consist- 
ing of  soul  and  body?  Doth  not  death  dissolve  the  man?  Are  not 
these  desires  apparently  frustrated  ?  Ho»v  will  the  light  of  nature 
certainly  infer  from  those  desire?,  gusts,  &c.  that  the  whole  man 
shall  have  eternal  felicity,  Avhile  we  see  the  man  daily  destroyed  by 
death  ?  Can  this  be  understood  without  revelation  ?  Docs  the  light 
of  nature  teach  us  that  there  will  be  a  resurrection  ?  I  grant,  that 
without  the  supposal  of  a  future  existence,  we  cannot  easily  un- 
derstand what  end  there  was  worthy  of  God  for  making  such  a  no- 
ble creature  as  man :  But  while  we  see  man,  on  the  other  hand, 
daily  destroyed  by  death,  and  know  nothing  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  which  is  the  case  of  all  those  who  reject  revelation,  v/e 
•shall  not  know  what  to  conclude,  but  must  be  twssed  in  oar  mind?, 
and  be  at  lo.<s  how  to  reconcile  those  seeming  inconsistencies : 
wliich  gave  a  great  man  occasion  to  observe,  "  That  there  can  be 
"  no  reconciliation  of  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punisb- 
*'  menis,  to  be  righteously  administered  upon  a  supposition  of  the 
"  separate  everlasting  subsistence  of  the  soul  only."*  And  for 
proof  of  thi«!,  he  insists  on  several  weighty  considerations,  which  I 
cannot  transcribe. 

But,  should  we  give  wp  all  this,  will  this  desire  of  happiness  prove 
that  God  designed  it  for  man,  whether  he  carried  himself  well  or 
not  ?  If  it  prove  not  that  sinful  man  may  be  happy,  or  that  eternal 
happiness  is  designed  for  man,  who  is  now  a  sinner,  what  are  we 
the  better  for  it  ?  Are  we  not  ail  more  or  less  guilty  ?  What  will  it 
help  \j%  that  we  were  originally  designed  for,  and  made  capable  of 
future  felicity,  if  we  are  now  under  an  incapacity  of  obtaining  it  ? 
Do  we  not  fiml  that  we  have  fallen  r.hort  of  perfect  obedience  : 
And  can  those  desires  assure  us  that  God  will  pardon,  yea  reward 
lis,  and  that  with  the  greatest  blessing  which  innojcent  man  was  ca- 
pable of  ?  Moreover,  before  we  end  this  discourse,  I  hope  to  make 
it  appear,  that  by  mere  llrrhl  of  nohire  no  man  can  assuredly  know 
that  sin  shall  be  pardoned  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  in  vain  to  pretend,  that 
we  can  be  assured  of  eternal  felicity  in  our  present  condition. 
They  who  have  sinned  less  and  suffered  more  in  this  life,  shall  not 
be  so  severely  punished  in  that  which  is  to  come,  as  they  who  havo 
siimcd  more  grievou><ly  and  escaped  without  punishment  here,  this 
reason  assures  us  of :  But  it  can  scarcely  so  much  as  afford  us  a 
colourable  plea  for  eternal  rewards,  to  any  virtue  that  is  stained  with 
the  least  sin.  The  scriptures  mvike  mention  of  a  happiness  promis- 
ed to  innocent  man  u[wn  perfect  obedieiice ;  and  of  salvation  to 
guihy  n»an  upon  f^.ith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Beside  these  two,  I  kncrw 
no  third  sort.  As  to  the  last,  the  light  of  nature  is  entirely  silent^ 
as  we  shall  see  afterwards.     "Whether  it  can  alone  prove  the  fii-st  is 

•  Dr.  Owen  on  Ilcb.  vi.  vcr.  I,  2.  Vol.  3,  page  21, 


96  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

a  question  :  But  that  man  in  his  present  condition  cannot  be  better 
for  it,  is  out  of  question. 

6.  Were  it  granted  that  these  arguments  are  conclusive,  j-et  the 
matter  would  be  very  little  mended  :  For  it  is  certain,  that  these 
arguments  are  too  thin  to  be  discerned  by  the  dim  eyes  of  the  gen- 
erality, even  though  they  had  tutors  wjio  would  be  at  pains  to  in- 
struct them.  Yea,  I  fear  that  they  rather  beget  suspicions  than 
llrm  persuasions  in  the  minds  of  philosophers.  They  are  of  that 
sort,  wliich  rather  silence  than  satisfy.  Arguments  ah  ahsurdOf 
rather  force  the  mind  to  assent,  than  determine  it  cheerfully  to  ac- 
quiesce in  the  truth  as  discovered.  Other  demonstrations  carry 
along  with  them  a  discovery  of  the  nature  of  the  thing,  which  sa- 
tisfies it  in  some  measure.  Hence  they  have  a  force,  not  only  to 
engage,  but  to  keep  the  soul  steady  in  its  adherence  to  truth ;  but 
these  oblige  to  implicit  belief  as  it  were,  and  therefore  the  mind 
easily  wavers  and  loses  view  of  truth  ;  and  is  no  longer  firm,  than  it 
is  forced  to  be  so,  by  a  present  view  of  the  argument.  Jf  learned 
men  were  always  observant  of  their  own  minds,  and  as  ingenuous  as 
the  Auditor  is  in  Cicero,  in  his  acknouledgment  about  the  force  of 
Plato's  arguments  for  the  immorlaUly  of  the  sow/,*  they  would 
make  gome  such  acknowledgment  as  he  does.  After  he  has  told, 
that  he  has  read  oftener  than  once,  Plato's  arguments  for  the  immor- 
hdity  of  iliC  sovJ,  which  Cicero  had  recommended  in  the  forego- 
inp"  discourse  as  the  befit  that  were  to  be  expected,  he  adds,  "  Sed 
"  nesclo  qnomoda,  dum  lego  assc7itior  :  cum  posni  librum,  ^^  me- 
"  cum  ipse  dc  immnr'aliiak  anUiiorum  cc^pi  cogitcire,  assentio  o?n- 
"  7ds  ilia  elahitur."f  In  like  manner  might  others  say,  when  I 
pore  upon  those  arguments  I  assent ;  but  when  I  begin  to  look  on 
the  matter,  I  find  there  arises  not  such  a  light  from  them,  as  is 
able  to  keep  the  mind  steady  In  its  assent.  More  especially  will  it 
be  found  so,  if  we  look  not  only  to  the  matter,  but  to  the  difficulties 
which  offer  about  it.  Yet  this  steadiness  is  of  absolute  necessity 
in  this  case,  since  a  respect  to  this  must  be  supposed  always  preva- 
lent, in  order  to  influence  to  a  steady  pursuit.  The  learned  Sir 
Matthew  Hale  observes,  that,  "  It  is  very  true,  that  partly  by 
«<  universal  tradition,  derived  probably  from  the  common  parent  of 
"  mankind,  partly  by  some  glimmerings  of  natural  light  in  the  na- 
'*'  tural  consciences,  in  some,  tit  least,  of  the  Heathen,  there  seem- 
*'  ed  to  be  some  common  persnasion  of  a  future  state  of  rewards 
"  and  punishments.  But  fust  it  was  weak  and  dim,  and  even  in 
"  many  of  the  v.'isest  of  them  overborn ;  so  that  it  was  rather  a 
"  suspicion,  or  at  most,  a  weak  and  faint  persuasion,  than  a  strong 

*  Cicero  Tiis.  Quest.  Lib.  1. 

•j-  "  But.  I  know  not  Iiow  it  happens,  that  nlthoucr'n  I  assenttohim  aslonp^  fis 
•'  I  am  readinp;',  yet  wlien  I  have  laid  down  the  ijnok,  and  hcsrnn  to  think  with 
*'  «rv.sf/'f  'rf  I'lc  ;'ivf.'^--''dify  of  tlic  sovU,    <V  +!:'.i.t  xs.sent  vanishes." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        97 

««  and  firm  conviction  :  And  hence  it  became  very  unoperative  and 
«  ineffectual  to  the  most  of  tfaem,  when  they  had  greatest  need  of 
«  it }  oamely,  upon  imminent  or  incumbent  temporal  evils  of  great 
«.  pressure.  But,  where  the  impression  was  firmest  among  them, 
<*  yet  still  they  were  in  the  dark  what  it  was,'* 

7.  ft  is  further  to  be  co^3ide^^d,  that  it  is  not  the  general  per- 
SHasjon  that  there  is  a  st  'te  of  future  happiness  and  misery,  which 
can  avail  ;*  but  there  must  be  a  discovery  of  that  happiness  in  its 
nature^  or  wherein  it  consists  ;  its  excellency  and  suitableness,  to 
engage  man  to  look  on  it  as  his  chief  good,  pursue  it  as  such,  per- 
severe in  the  pursuit  over  alj  opposition,  and  forego  other  things, 
which  he  sees  and  knows  the  present  pleasure  and  advantage  of, 
for  it.  Now,  such  a  view  the  light  of  nature  can  never  rationally 
be  pretended  to  be  able  to  give  :  If  it  is,  let  the  pretender  she^ 
lis  where,  apd  by  whom  such  an  account  has  been  given  and  verifi- 
ed ;  or  let  him  do  it  himself.  And  if  this  is  not  done,  as  it  never 
has,  and  1  fear  not  to  say  never  can  be  done  ;  it  would  not  mend 
the  matter,  though  we  should  forego  all  that  has  been  abovesaid,  (as 
was  above  insinuated,)  which  yet  we  see  no  necessity  of  doing. 

8.  I  might  here  tell  how  faintly  the  deists  use  to  speak  upon  this 
liead.  Though  upon  occasion,  they  can  be  positive  ;  yet  at  other 
times  they  speak  modestly  about  the  being  of  a  future  state  of  hap- 
piness, and  tfclls  us,  "  That  rewards  and  punishments  hereafter, 
**  though  the  notion  of  them  has  not  been  universally  received,  the 
*'  Heathens  disagreeing  about  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
*'  the  soul, miy  yet  be  granted  to  seem  reasonable,  because  they  are 
*^'  deduced  from  the  doctrine  of  providence,— and  that  they  may 
**  be  granted  parts  of  natural  religion,  because  the  wisest  men  have, 
*•  ijliclined  to  hold  them  amongst  the  Heathen,"f  &c.  and  now  do 
in  all  opinions.  And  as  they  seem  not  over  certain  as  to  the  being 
of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  so  they  plainly  own  they  caa 
give  no  accoimt  what  they  are.  *'  QiuB  vcro,  qualifi^  quanta,  Sic. 
*'  hcecvita  secunda  vel  mors  fuerit  ob  defectum  condltionwn  adve- 
"  ritatus  isthis  conformationem  posiulatarumj  sciri  nequit,"  say^ 
the  learned  Herbert.1[.  ' 

•  Herbert  de  Veritate,  page  59. 

f  Oi-acle  of  Reason,  pag-e  201. 

i  De  Ver.  page  57.  &  Alibi  S(Spius. — "  But  what,  of  what  kind,  and  how 
,*'  g^rent,  this  second  life  or  death  sliall  be,  can  not  be  known,  for  want  of  those 
*  conditions  that  are  required  for  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  it." 


la 


AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 


CHAP.    VIL 

Naturt^s  Light  awards  not  a  sufficient  Rule  of  Duiif*    lis  Tnmi^ 
ciency  hence  inferred. 

THERE  is  certainly  no  other  waj  of  attaining  happiness,  tha» 
by  pleasing  God.  Happiness  is  no  other  way  to  be  had,  than  from 
him,  and  no  oth^r  way  can  we  reasonably  expect  it  from  him, 
bnt  in  the  way  of  duty  or  obedience.  Obedience  must  either  b© 
with  respect  to  those  things  which  immediately  regard  the  honor 
cf  the  Deity,  or  in  other  things.  The  insujjij ciency  of  natural 
religion  as  to  worship,  has  been  above  demonstrated.  ITiat  it  i« 
wanting  as  to  the  latter,  viz.  those  dnties  which  we  called,  for  dis«» 
tirction*s  sake,  duties  of  moral  ohediencey  is  now  to  be  proven.—* 
That  man  is  subject  to  God,  and  so  ia  every  thing  obliged  to  regu- 
late himself  according  to  the  prescription  of  God,  has  been  above 
asserted,  and  the  grounds  of  this  assertion,  have  been  more  thao 
insinuated.  Now  if  nature's  light  is  not  able  to  aflfbrd  a  complete 
directory  as  to  the  whole  of  man's  conduct,  in  so  far  as  the  Deity 
is  concerned,  it  can  never  be  allowed  sufficient  to  conduct  man  ia 
religion,  and  lead  him  to  eternal  happiness  :  While  it  leaves  him  at 
a  loss  as  to  sufficient  rules  for  universal  virtue,  which  even  Deists 
own  to  be  the  principal  way  of  serving  God  and  obtaining  happi- 
ness. It  is  one  of  the  princpal  things  to  which  this  is  to  be 
ascribed,  and  whereon  man's  hopes  must  reafonably  be  supposed  to 
lean,  if  he  is  left  to  the  mere  conduct  of  the  light  of  nature.  Now 
the  insufficiency  of  nature's  light  in  this  point  will  be  fully  made 
appear,  from  the  ensuing  considerations  j  some  of  which  arc  ex- 
cellently discoursed  by  the  ingenious  Mr.  Locke  in  his  Beasonor' 
bleness  of  Christiamty,  w^  delivered  in  the  Scripture.^  If  he  had 
done  as  well  in  other  points  as  in  this,  he  had  deserved  the  thanks 
of  all  that  wish  well  to  Christianity :  But  so  far  as  he  follows  the 
truth  we  shall  take  his  assistance,  and  improve  some  of  his  notioni^ 
adding  such  others,  as  are  by  him  omitted,  which  may  be  judged 
of  use  to  the  case  in  hand. 

1 .  Then  we  observe,  that  no  man  Feft  to  the  conduct  merely  of 
nature's  lifht,  has  offered  us  a  complete  body  of  morality.  Kome 
p?rts  of  our  duty  are  pretty  fully  taught  by  philosophers  and  poli- 
ticians. "  So  much  virtue  as  was  necessary  to  hold  societies  to- 
«  gether,  and  to  contribute  to  the  quiet  of  governments,  the  civil 
"  laws  of  commonwealths  taught,  and  forced  upon  men  that  lived 
«  under  magistrates.  But  these  laws,  being  for  the  most  part  made 
*'  by  such,  who  have  no  other  aims  but  their  own  power,  reached 

*  Eeas.  of  Christ,  page  267. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       m 

«  HO  further  than  those  things  that  would  serve  to  tie  men  toi^ether 
**  in  subjection ;  or  at  most,  were  directly  to  conduce  lo  the  pros- 
•*  perity  and  temporal  h  ippiness  of  any  people.  But  natural  re- 
•*  ligion  in  its  f u  I  extewt,  was  no  where,  that  i  know  of,  taken 
«  care  of  by  the  force  of  nitural  reason.  J t  should  seem  by  the 
•'  little  that  hitherto  has  been  done  in  it,  that  it  is  too  hard  a  thing 
"  for  unassisted  reason  to  establish  morality  in  all  its  parts,  upon 
"  its  true  foundations,  with  a  clear  and  convincing  light."*  Some 
parts  haVe  been  noticed,  anl  others  quite  omitted.  A  complete 
system  of  morality  in  its  whole  extent  has  never  been  attempted 
by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  much  less  completed. 

2«  To  gather  together  the  scattered  rules  that  are  to  be  met  with 
in  the  writings  of  morality^  and  weave  these  shreds  into  a  compe- 
tent body  of  morality y  in  so  far  as  even  the  particular  direction  of 
any  one  man  would  require,  is  a  work  of  that  immense  labour,  and 
requires  so  much  learning,  study  and  attention,  that  it  has  never 
been  performed,  and  never  like  to  be  performed,  and  quite  sur- 
mounts the  capacity  of  most,  if  not  of  any  one  man.  So  that 
neither  is  there  a  complete  body  of  morality  given  us  by  any  one. 
Nor  is  it  ever  likely  to  be  collected  from  those  who  have  given  ua 
parcels  of  it. 

3.  Were  all  the  moral  directions  of  the  ancient  sages  collected. 
It  would  not  be  a  system  that  would  be  any  way  useful  to  the  body 
of  mankind.  It  would  consist  for  most  part  of  enigmatical,  dark 
and  involved  sentences,  that  would  need  a  commentary  too  long  for 
vulgar  leisure  to  peruse,  to  make  them  intelligible.  Any  one  that 
is  in  the  least  measure  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  philoso- 
phers will  not  question  this.  Of  what  use  would  it  be  to  read  such 
morality  as  that  of  Pythagoras,  whose  famed  sentences  were, 
*'  Poke  not  in  the  fire  with  a  sword  ;  stride  not  over  the  beam  of  a 
«  balance ;  sit  not  upon  a  bushel ;  eat  not  the  heart ;  take  up  your 
**  burthen  with  lielp  ;  ease  yourself  of  it  with  assistance  ;  have  al- 
<'  ways  your  bed  clothes  well  tucked  up  ;  carry  not  the  image  of 
<'  God  about  you  in  a  ring,"  &c.  Was  this  like  to  be  of  any  use  to 
mankind  ?  No  surely,  some  of  them  indeed  speak  more  plain,  some 
of  them  less  so ;  but  none  of  them  sufficiently  plain  to  be  under- 
stood by  the  vulgar. 

4.  Further,  were  tliis  collection  made,  and,  upon  other  accounts, 
unexceptionable  ;  yet  it  would  not  be  sufficiently  full  to  be  an  uni- 
versal directory.  For,  1.  Many  important  duties  would  be  want- 
ing. Self-denial,  that  consists  in  a  mean  opinion  of  ourselves,  and 
leads  to  a  submitting,  and  passing  from  all  our  most  valuable  con- 
cerns, when  the  honor  of  God  requires  it,  is  the  fundamental  duty 
of  all  religion,  that  which  is  of  absolute  necessity  to  a  due  ackoow- 

*  £eas.  of  Christ,  pa^  S6C. 


100  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

ledgement  of  man's  subjection  and  dependence  ;  and  yet  we  shall 
find  a  deep  silence  in  all  the  moralists  abont  it.  Which"  defe'ct  is 
the  more  considerable,  that  the  whole  of  our  apostacy  is  easily  re- 
ducible to  this  one  point,  an  endeavor  to  subject  the  will,  concerns 
end  pleasures  of  God  to  our  own.  And  no  act  of  obedience  to 
hira,  can,  without  gross  igiwrance  of  his  nature,  and  unacquainted- 
Bess  with  the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  be  presumed  acceptable, 
which  flows  not  from  such  a  principle  of  self-denial,  as  fixedly  pre- 
fer the  concerns  of  God's  glory  to  all  other  things.  Again,  what 
duty  have  we  more  need  of,  than  that  which  is  employed  in  forgiv- 
ing enemies,  nay  ia  loving  them  ?  We  have  frequent  occasions  for 
it.  If  we  are  not  acquainted  that  this  is  duty,  we  must  frequent- 
ly run  into  the  opposite  sin.  But  where  is  this  taught  among  the 
Heathens  ?  Further,  where  shall  we  find  a  directory  as  to  the  in- 
ward frame  and  actings  of  our  minds,  guiding  us  how  to  regulate 
our  thoughts,  our  designs  ?  Some  notice  is  taken  of  the  outward 
behaviour  ;  but  little  of  that  which  is  the  spring  of  it.  Where  ia 
there  a  rule  for  the  direction  of  our  thoughts  as  to  objects  about 
^yhich  they  should  be  employed,  or  as  to  the  manner  vv^herein  they 
are  to  be  conversant  about  them  ?  These  things  are  of  great  im» 
portance,  and  yet  by  very  far  out  of  the  ken  of  unenlightened  na- 
ture. Divine  and  spiritual  things  were  little  known,  and  less  thought 
of  by  philosophers.  2.  As  this  system  would  be  defective  as  to 
particular  duties  of  the  highest  importance  ;  so  it  would  be  quite 
defective  as  to  the  grounds  of  those  duties  which  are  enjoined.  It 
is  not  enough  to  recommend  duty,  that  it  is  useful  to  us,  or  the  soci- 
eties we  live  in.  When  we  act  only  on  such  grounds,  we  shew 
some  regard  to  ourselves,  and  the  societies  whereof  we  are  mem- 
bers ;  but  none  to  God.  Where  are  these  cleared  to  be  the  laws 
of  God  ?  Who  is  he  that  presses  obedience  upon  the  consciences 
of  men,  from  the  consideration  of  God's  authority  stamped  upon 
these  laws  he  prescribes  ?  And  yet  without  this,  you  may  call  it 
what  you  will ;  obedience  you  cannot  call  it.  It  is  well  observed  by 
Mr.  Locke, — "  Those  just  measures  of  right  and  wrong,  which  ne- 
*'  cessity  had  any  where  introduced,  the  civil  laws  prescribed,  or 
*«  philosophers  recommended,  stood  not  on  their  true  foundations. 
*'  Thev  were  looked  on  as  bonds  of  society,  and  conveniences  of 
*'  common  life,  and  laudable  practices  :  But  where  was  it  that  their 
*'  obligation  was  thoroughly  known,  and  allowed,  and  they  received 
*'  as  precepts  of  a  law,  of  the  highest  law,  the  law  of  nature  ?  That 
*'  could  not  be  without  the  clear  knowledge  of  the  lawgiver,  and  the 
*'  great  rewnrds  or  punishments  for  those  that  would  not,  or  would 
«'  obey.  But  the  relislon  of  the  Heathens,  as  was  before  observed, 
«  little  concerned  itself  in  their  morals.  The  priests  that  delivered 
«  the  oracles  of  heaven,  and  pretended  to  speak  from  the  gods, 
"  spoke  little  of  virtue  and  a  good  life.    And  on  the  other  side,  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      lOl 

«  philosophers  who  spoke  from  reason,  made  not  much  mention  of 
"  the  Deity  in  their  ethicks."* 

.  5.  Not  only  would  this  rule  be  defective  and  lame,  but  it  would 
be  found  corrupt  and  pernicious.  For,  1,  Instead  of  leading  them 
in  the  way,  it  would  in  many  instances  lead  them  aside.  We 
should  have  here  Epictetus  binding  you  to  temporise,  and  "  worship 
"  the  gods  after  the  fashion  of  your  country.'  f  You  should  find 
Pythagoras  "  forbidding  you  to  pray  for  yourself  to  God,"  J  because 
you  know  not  what  is  convenient.  You  should  find  Aristotle  and 
Cicero  commending  revenge  as  a  duff/.  The  latter  you  should  find 
defending  Brutus  and  Cassius  for  killing  Caesar,  and  thereby  au- 
thorising the  murder  of  any  magistrates,  if  the  actors  can  but  per- 
suade themselves  that  they  are  tyrants.  Had  we  nothing  to  con- 
duct u«  in  our  obedience  and  loyalty,  but  the  sentiments  of  philo- 
fophers,  no  prince  could  be  secure  either  of  his  life  or  dignity.  You 
should  find  Cicero  pleading  for  self-murder,  from  which  he  can  ne- 
ver be  freed,  nor  can  any  tolerable  apology  be  made  for  him.  Here- 
in he  was  seconded  by  Brutus,  Cato,  Cassius,  Seneca  and  others 
innumerable.  Many  of  them  practised  it ;  others  applauded  of 
their  sentiments  in  this  matter.  You  may  find  a  large  account  in 
Mr.  Dodwel's  Apology  for  the  Philosophical  Performances  of 
Cicero,  prefixed  to  Mr.  Parker's  translation  of  his  book  de  Finibus. 
And  you  may  find  the  Deists  justifying  this  in  the  preface  to  the 
Orades  of  Reason,  wherein  Blount's  killing  of  himself  is  justified. 
Of  the  same  mind  was  Seneca,  who  expressly  advises  the  practice 
of  it.  We  should  here  find  customary  swearing  commmded,\\  if 
not  by  their  precepts,  yet  by  the  examples  of  the  best  moralists, 
Plato,  Socrates,  and  Seneca.  In  whom  numerous  instances  of 
oaths  by  Jupiter,  Hercules,  and  by  beasts,  do  occur.  In  the  same 
way  we  should  find  unnatural  lust  recommcndcd.f^i  Aristotle  prac- 
tised it.  And  Socrates  is  foully  belied,  if  he  loved  not  the  same 
vice.  .  Whence  else  could  Socrafici  Cincedi  come  to  be  a  proverb 
in  Juneval's  days.  Pride  and  self-esteem  were  among  their  virtues. 
Which  cives  me  o?casion  to  observe,  that  this  one  thing  overturned 
their  whole  morality.  Epictetns,  one  of  the  best  of  all  their  mo- 
ralists, tells  us,  "  That  the  constitution  and  image  of  a  philosopher 
"  is  to  expect  eood,  as  well  as  fear  evil,  only  from  himself."** — • 
Seneca  urgeth  this  every  where — "  Sapiens  tarn  <ejno  animo  om- 
**  nia  apnd  alios  videf,  cnniemnitnue,  quam  Jupiter  :  Et  hoc 
"  se  magis  suspicit,  quod  Jupiter  iff  i  illis  non  potest^  sapiens  7ion 

•  Reasonableness  of  Christianity,  page  278, 

f  Epict.  Enchiri(l.  Cap.  38. 

i  DioR-.  Laert.  Vit.  Pyth.  pape  7. 

fl  Seneca  delra,  Lit).  .3.  Cap.'lS. 

^  Dio^.  Ixiert    Vita  Arist.Lib.  J.  page  323. 

••  Epict  Ench.Cap.  27. 


102  AN  INQUmY  INTO  THE 

**  wJf."*  And  again,  "  Est  aliquid  quo  sapieM  anieeedai  Deum* 
"  Ille  naturae  hmejicioj  non  swo,  sapiens  crf.f  Incomptits 
**  vir  sit  externis  Sr  insuperabilis,  Tnir&torque  tantum  iui.'^X 
•*  Pride  and  self-esteem  was  a  disease  iepideOiical  amongst  theni, 
**  and  seems  wholly  incurable  by  any  notions  that  they  had.  Some 
**  arrived  to  that  impudence  to  compire  themselves  with,  nay, 
**  prefer  themselves  before  their  own  gods.  It  was  cither  a  hor»' 
*'  rible  folly  to  deify  what  they  postponed  to  their  own  Belf-estima* 
"  lion,  or  else  it  was  a  stupendous  effect  df  their  pride  to  prefer 
**  themselves  to  the  gods  that  they  worshipped.  Never  any  maa 
**  amongst  them  proposed  the  honor  of  their  gods  as  the  chief  end 
"  of  their  actions,  nor  so  much  as  dreamed  of  any  such  thing;  it  h 
**  evident  that  the  best  of  them  in  their  best  actions  reflected  &tilS 
"  back  to  themselves,  and  determinated  there,  designing  to  set  up 
"  a  pillar  to  their  own  fame."H  That  known  sentence  of  Cicero, 
who  speaks  out  plainly  what  others  thought,  will  justify  this  severe 
censure  given  by  this  worthy  person,  Vult  plane  virtus  Jionorem  ^ 
Nee  virtutis  ulla  alia  mcrces.*"^  Were  it  needful,  I  might  write 
volumes  to  this  purpose,  that  would  make  one's  flesh  tremble  to 
read.  They  who  desire  satisfaction  in  this  point,  may  find  it  large- 
ly done  by  others.  I  shall  conclude  this  first  evidence  of  the  cor*- 
ruption  of  their  moralib/^  with  this  general  reflection  of  the  learned 
Amy  raid  in  his  Treatise  of  Religions :  "  Scarce  can  there  befoimd 
•*  any  commonwealth,  amongst  those,  which  have  been  esteemed 
•*  the  best  governed,  in  which  some  grand  and  signal  vice  has  not 
**  been  excused,  or  permitted,  or  even  sometimes  recommended  by 
"  public  laws."ff  2.  Not  only  did  they  enjoin  wron<r  things;  but 
they  enjoined  what  was  right  to  a  wrong  end,  yea  even  their  best 
things,  as  we  heard  just  now,  aimed  at  their  own  honor.  We  have 
heard  Cicero  to  this  purpose  telling  plainly  that  lionor  mas  tkeit 
aim.  Or  of  what  the  poet  said  of  Brutus  killing  his  bwn  sons  wheQ 
they  intended  the  overthrow  of  the  liberty  of  their  country, 

Ficif  amor  patriee  lavdumqtie  immensa  cupi^o,'\,'^ 

js  the  most  that  can  be  pleaded  for  most  of  them.     Others  arc 

*  Seneca,  Epist.  73.—**  A  wise  man  behalds  and  despises  all  tiling's  that  he 
**  sees  in  the  possession  of  others,  with  as  easy  a  mind  as  Jupiter  himself.— 
"  And  in  this  he  admires  himself  the  more,  that  Jupiter  cannot  use  those 
•*  things  which  he  despises,  whereas  the  wise  man  can  use  them,  but  will  not. 

f  lb.  Epist.  53.  -"  There  is  something  in  which  a  wise  man  excels  God,  as 
**  God  is  wise  by  the  benefit  of  his  nature,  and  not  by  his  own." 

\  lb.  devita  Beata,  Cap.  8. — "  Let  a  man  be  incorruptible  and  incorrigible 
*'  be  external  things,  and  an  admirer  of  himself  alone." 

II  Sir  Char.  Wolseley's  Reason  of  Scripture  Belief,  page  118. 

*•  Cicero  de  .^micitia.'-'"  Virtue  certainly  will  have  honor,  nor  la  there  any 
•*  other  reward  of  virtue." 

ff  See  instances  to  this  purpose  in  a  discourse  of  Moral  Virtue,  and  its  dif- 
ierence  from  Grace,  page  225. 

ii  "  The  love  of  his  country,  and  his  immense  desire  of  praise,  overcame  him.'* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERI^J  DEISTS,      im 

plamly  blasphemous,  as  wc  have  heard  from  Seneca,  designing  to 
be  above  God  by  his  virtue.  At  this  rate  this  philosophy  talks  ve- 
ry oft :  "  Let  philosophy,"  says  he,  «  minister  this  to  me,  that  it 
**  render  me  equal  to  God."*  To  the  maintenance  of  this,  their 
notions  about  the  sou!  of  m  n  contributed  much;  stllim:  it  a  piece 
dipt  fromGod,  *A»-orw»r^«T^©f  ir,  or  a  part  of  God,  t»  Ai««  Mt^^, 
aa  Bpictetus  speass.  irlovdce  c^iil^  \t  divina  particula  aurce.  Cice- 
ro in  bis  Somnmn  Scip.  telle  us  what  they  thought  of  themselves, 
Deum  9cUo  te  ess^— "  Know  thyself  to  be  a  God."  And  according- 
ly  the  Indian  Brachmans  vouched  themselves  for  Gods.  And  in- 
deed they,  who  debased  their  Gods  below  men,  by  their  abomina- 
ble cbaracteri  of  them,  it  was  no  wonder  to  find  them  prefer  them- 
selves to  them.  Nor  did  any  run  higher  this  way  than  Plato, 
Let  any  one  read  his  arguments  for  the  immortalUy  of  the  soid, 
and  if  they  prove  any  thing,  they  prove  it  a  God.  Thus  they 
quite  corrupted  all  they  taught,  by  directing  it  to  wrong  ends. 
3.  This  system  would  corrupt  us  as  to  the  fountain  of  virtue  and 
its  principle,  teaching  us  to  trust  ourselves,  and  not  depend  on  God 
for  it.  We  have  beard  some  speak  to  this  purpose  already;  and 
Cicero  may  well  be  allowed  to  speak  for  the  rest.  "  A  Deo  tantum 
<*  rationem  haberhns  .•  Bo7uim  autem  rationem  aut  non  bonam  a 
«*■  no6i5."t  And  a  little  after,  near  the  close  of  his  book,  after  he  has 
owned  our  external  advantages  of  learning  to  be  from  God,  he  sub- 
join&— ■"  Virtutem  autem  nemo  unquam  acceptam  Deo  retulit,  ni- 
**  mirum  recte  .♦  Propter  virtutem  enim  jure  laudamur,  ^c  in  vir^ 
"  tute  recte  ^loriamur,  quod  non  contingeret,  si  id  donum  a  Deo, 
"  nonanobis  kaberemus."^  'I'hus  we  see  how  corrupt  they  were 
in  this  point,  and  it  is  here  easily  observable  whence  they  were 
corrupted  as  to  their  chief  end.  He  that  believes  that  he  has  any 
thing  that  is  not  from  God,  will  have  somewhat  also  that  he  will  not 
refer  to  him,  as  his  chief  end.  4.  The  corruption  of  this  system, 
would  in  this  appear,  that  it  would  he  full  of  contradictions.  Here 
we  shall  find  nothing  but  endless  jars ;  one  condemning  as  abomina- 
ble, what  another  approves  and  praises:  Whereby  we  should  be 
led  to  judge  neither  right,  rather  than  any  of  them.  A  man  who, 
for  direction,  will  betake  himself  to  the  declaration  of  the  philoso- 
phers, goes  into  a  wild  wood  of  uncertainty,  and  into  an  endless 
maze,  from  which  he  should  neVer  get  out.  Plenty  of  instances, 
confirming  these  two  last  meutioncd  observations,  might  be  adduc- 

•  Seneca,  Epistle  48. 

?•  Cicero  de  Natura  Dcorum,  Lib.  3.  P.  mihi,  173 — "  We  have  only  reason 
rom  God,  but  we  have  {jood  or  bad  reason  from  oiirselviig." 

♦  *'  But  nobody  ever  acknowledged  thai  he  was  indebted  to  God  for  his  vir- 
**  tue,  and  certainly  with  good  reason  ;  for  we  are  justly  praised  on  account  of 
"  our  virtue,  and  we  justly  boast  of  it,  which  could  r.ot  be  thscojic,  if  Wc  lud 
**  that  gil't  f;-om  Godj  and  not  f.-om  ourselves." 


104  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

cd.  If  the  reader  desire  them,  I  shall  refer  him  to  Mr:  Lockc'^ 
Essay  on  Human  Understandmg,  book  1 .  chap.  3.  parag.  9.  where 
he  may  see  it  has  been  customary  with  not  a  few  nations,  to  ex* 
pose  their  children,  bury  them  alive  without  scruple,  fatten  them 
for  the  slaughter,  kill  them  and  eat  them,  and  dispatch  their,  aged 
parents :  yea  some,  he  will  find,  have  been  so  absurd,  as  to  expect 
paradise  as  a  reward  of  revenge^  and  of  eating  ahundcnce  of  their 
enemies.  Whether  these  instances  will  answer  Mr.  Locke's  purpose, 
I  dispute  not  now.  I  design  not  to  make  myself  a  party  in  that 
controversy.  But  I  am  sure  such  fatal  mistakes,  as  to  what  is  good 
and  evil,  are  a  pregnant  evidence  of  the  insufficiency  of  nature's 
light  to  afford  us  a  complete  rule  of  duty.  If  they,  who  were  left 
to  it,  blundered  so  shamefully  in  the  clearest  cases,  how  shall  we 
expect  direction,  as  to  those  that  are  far  more  intricate  ? 

6.  Be  this  system  never  so  complete,  yet  it  can  never  be  allow- 
ed to  be  a  rule  of  life  to  mankind.  This  I  cannot  better  satisfy  my- 
self upon,  than  by  transcribing  what  the  ingenious  Mr.  Locke  has 
excellently  discoursed  on  this  bead.  "  I  will  suppose  there  was 
**  a  Stobeus  in  those  times,  who  had  gathered  the  moral  sayings 
*'  from  all  the  sages  of  the  world.  What  would  this  amount  to, 
*'  towards  being  a  steady  rule,  a  certain  transcript  of  a  law,  that  we 
*'  are  under  ?  Did  the  saying  of  Aristlppus,  or  Confucius,  give  it 
*'  authority?  Was  Zeno  a  lawgiver  to  mankind  ?  If  not,  what  he . 
*'  orany  other  philosopher  delivered,  was  but  a  saying  of  his.  Man- 
*♦  kind  might  hearken  to  It  or  reject  it  as  they  pleased,  or  as  it 
•*  suited  their  interest,  passions,  principles,  or  humours.  They 
"  were  under  no  obligation  :  The  opinion  of  this  or  that  philoso- 
**  pher,  was  of  no  authority.  And  if  it  were,  you  must  take  all  he , 
*'  said  under  the  same  charactc'r.  All  his  dictates  must  go  for  law, 
**  certain  and  true;  or  none  of  them.  And  then  if  you  will  take 
**  the  moral  sayings  of  Epicurus  (many  whereof  Seneca  quotes 
*•  with  approbation)  for  precepts  of  the  law  of  nature,  you  must 
•*  take  all  the  rest  of  his  doctrine  for  such  too,  or  else  his  authority 
"  ceases:  So  no  more  is  to  be  received  from  him,  or  any  of  the 
"  sages  of  old,  for  parts  of  the  law  of  nature,  as  carrying  with  them 
*'  any  obligation  to  be  obeyed,  but  what  they  prove  to  be  so.  But 
**  such  a  body  of  ethicks,  proved  to  be  the  law  of  nature,  from 
'*  principles  or  reason,  and  repching  all  the  duties  of  life,  I  think  no* 
**  body  will  say  the  world  had  before  our  Saviour's  time."  A  nd  I 
may  add,  nor  to  this  day  has,  by  the  mere  light  of  n  >ture.  "  It  is 
•*  not  enough,"  cortinues  he,  "  that  there  were  \^^  and  down  scat- 
*•  tered  sayings  of  wise  men,  conformable  to  right  reason.  The 
"  law  of  nature  was  the  law  of  conveniency  loo  :  And  it  is  no  won- 
*'  der  these  men  of  part?,  and  studious  of  virtue,  (who  had  occa- 
"  sion  to  thli-;  of  any  particular  part  of  it)  should,  by  medilation, 
•*  light  on  the  right,  even  from  the  observable  conveniency  and 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      105 

«  beauty  of  it,  without  making  out  its  obligation  from  the  true  prin- 
«  ciples  of  the  law  of  nature,  and  foundations  of  morality."  More 
be  adds  judiciously  to  this  purpose ;  but  this  is  enough.  And 
hence  it  is  plain,  that  such  a  system  of  morality  would,  if  collected, 
at  best  be  only  a  collection  of  problems,  which  every  man  is  left  at 
liberty  to  canvass,  dispute,  or  reject ;  nay  mote,  which  every  man 
is  obliged  to  examine  as  to  all  its  parts,  in  so  far  as  it  prescribes  rules 
to  him,  and  not  to  receive,  but  upon  a  discovery  of  its  truth  from 
its  proper  principles. 

7.  It  is  then  plain,  that  every  man  is  left  to  his  own  reason  to 
find  out  his  duty  by.  He  is  not  to  receive  it  upon  any  other  au- 
thority than  that  of  reason,  if  revelation  is  rejected.  He  must 
find  out  therefore,  in  every  case,  what  he  is  to  do,  and  deduce  its 
obligation  from  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nature.  But  who  sees 
not,  that  the  most  part  of  men  have  neither  leisure  nor  capacity 
for  such  a  work  ?  Men  may  think  duty  easy  to  be  discovered  now, 
when  Christianity  has  cleared  it  up.  But  Mr.  Locke  well  observes, 
"  That  the  first  knowledge  of  those  truths,  which  have  been  disco- 
♦'  vered  by  Christian  philosophers,  or  philosophers  since  Christi- 
"  anity  prevailed,  is  owing  to  revelation  ;  though  as  soon  as  they  are 
"  heard  and  considered,  they  are  found  to  be  agreeable  to  reason, 
"  and  such  as  can  by  no  means  be  contradicted.  Every  one  may 
"  observe  a  great  many  truths  which  he  receives  at  first  from 
"  others,  and  readily  assents  to,  as  consonant  to  reason,  which  he 
"  would  have  found  it  hard,  and  perhaps  beyond  his  strength  to 
"  have  discovered  himself.  Native  ai:d  original  truth,  is  not  so 
"  easily  wrought  out  of  the  mine,  as  we  who  have  it  delivered 
"  ready  dug  and  fashioned  into  our  hands,  are  apt  to  imagine.  And 
"  how  often  at  fifty,  and  three  score  years  old,  are  thinking  men 
"  told,  what  they  wonder  how  they  could  miss  thinking  of?  Which 
"  yet  their  own  contemplations  did  not,  and  possibly  never  would 
"  have  helped  them  to.  Experience  shews,  that  the  knowledge  of 
"  morality,  by  mere  natural  light,  (how  agreeable  soever  it  be  to  it,) 
"  makes  but  a  slow  progress  and  little  advance  in  the  world: 
"  Whatever  was  the  cause,  it  is  plain  in  fact,  that  human  reason, 
"  unassisted,  failed  men  in  its  great  and  proper  business  of  mo^ 
«  rality." 

8.  As  it  is  unquestionably  certain,  that  the  most  part  of  man- 
kind are  not  able,  by  their  own  reason,  to  frame  a  complete  body  of 
morality  for  themselves,  or  find  out  what  is  their  own  duty  in  every 
particular  instance.  (I  shall  not  speak  of  any  man's  being  obliged 
to  dii'Cover  what  belongs  to  other  people's  duty,  lest  our  antagonists 
should  suspect  I  designed  to  open  a  door  for  priests,  a  set  of  men 
and  an  office  which  they  mortally  hate.)  I  speak  only  of  what  h 
every  one's  duty  in  particular.  And  I  say  it  is  evident,  that  the 
most  part  of  mankind  are  unable  to  find  this,  which  ii  not  to  he 

14 


IQS  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

jdone,  but  by  such  strains  of  reasoning,  and  connexion  of  conse- 
quences, which  they  have  neither  leisure  to  weigh,  nor,  for  want  of 
capacity,  education  and  use,  skill  to  judge  of;  and  as  I  say,  they 
are  unable  for  this,  so  I  fear  this  task  will  be  found  too  hard  for  the 
ablest  philosophers.  Particular  duties  are  so  many,  and  many  of 
them  so  remote  from  the  first  principles,  and  the  connection  is  so 
subtle  and  fine  spun,  that  I  fear  not  to  say  that  it  must  escape  thfe 
piercing  eyes  of  the  most  acute  philosophers :  and  if  they  engage  in 
pursuit  of  the  discovery,  through  so  many  and  so  subtle  conse- 
quences, they  must  either  quit  the  unequal  chace,  or  lose  them- 
.selves  instead  of  finding  truth  and  duty.  And  if  we  allow  ourselves 
to  judge  of  what  shall  be,  by  what  has  been  the  success  of  such  at- 
tempts, I  am  sure  this  is  more  than  bare  guess. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  no  tolerable  progress  could  be 
made  herein,  were  it  to  be  done  before  advanced  years.  But  it  is 
certain  that  youth,  as  well  as  riper  age,  is  under  the  law  of  naturej 
.and  that  that  age  needs  clear  discoveries  of  duty  the  more,  that  in 
it  irregular  passions  and  inclinations  are  more  vigorous,  and  it  is  ex- 
posed to  more  temptations  than  any  part  of  a  man's  life;  and  besides, 
it  wants  the  advantages  of  experience,  to  fortify  it  against  the  dan- 
gerous influence  of  them,  which  advanced  years  are  attended  with. 
Now  it  will  be  to  no  purpose  to  me,  to  find  out  some  years  hence 
what  was  my  duty  before,  as  to  obedience ;  for  now  the  season  is 
over.  The  law  may  discover  my  sin^  but  can  never  regulate  my 
.practice,  in  a  period  of  my  life  that  is  past  and  gone.  Every  man 
,  must  have  the  knowledge  of  each  day's  duty  in  its  season.  This 
is  not  to  be  had  from  the  light  of  nature.  K  we  are  left  at  a  loss  in 
our  younger  years,  as  nature's  light  will  have  us,  we  may  be  ruined 
before  knowledge  come.  Much  sin  must  be  contracted,  and  ill  ha- 
bits are  like  to  be  very  much  strengthened  before  any  stop  come  : 
yea,  they  may  be  so  strong,  that  the  foundation  of  inevitable  ruin 
may  be  laid. 

Finally,  knovrledge  is  requisite  before  acting  ;  at  least,  in  order 
of  nature  it  is  so,  and  must,  at  least  in  order  of  time,  be  contempo- 
rary. Action  gives  not  always  time  for  long  reasoning  and  weigh- 
ing such  trains  of  consequences,  as  are  requisite  to  clear  duties 
from  the  first  principles  of  nature's  light,  and  enforce  their  obliga- 
tion. And  therefore  man  left  to  it,  is  in  a  miserable  plight,  not 
much  unlike  to  the  case  of  the  Romans,  Diim  deliberant  Romani 
capitur  Saguntmn*^ :  While  he  is  searching  for  duty,  the  season 
is  lost ;  and  the  discovery,  if  it  comes,  arrives  too  late  to  be  of 
any  use. 

It  is  in  vain  for  any  to  pretend,  that  the  knowledge  of  duty  is 
,  connate  to  the  mind  of  man.     Whatever  may  be  pretended  as  to  a 

*  **  While  the  Romans  were  deliberating,  Saguntum  was  taken." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERlSf  DEISTS.      107 

(fev  of  the  first  principles  of  morality,  and  it  is  but  a  very  feW  of 
which  these  can  be  alledged,  yet  it  is  certain,  it  can  never  be  with- 
out impudence  extended  to  the  thousandth  part  of  the  duties  wc 
are  bound  to  in  particular  cases.  General  rules  may  be  easy  ;  par- 
ticular ones  are  the  difficulty,  and  the  application  of  generals  to 
circumstantiated  cases  is  a  hard  task.  It  is  but  with  an  ill  grace 
pretended,  that  these  duties  are  self-evident,  and  the  knowledge  of 
them  innate  or  connate,  call  it  what  you  please,  to  the  mind  of 
man ;  which  the  world  has  never  been  agreed  about ;  which  wise 
men,  when  the  fairest  occasions  offered  of  thinking  on  them,  could 
not  discern ;  which  philosophers,  upon  application  and  attention, 
cannot  make  out  from  the  principles  of  reason.  The  reason  why 
the  knowledge  of  any  truth  is  said  to  be  innate,  is,  because,  either 
the  mind  of  man  is  struck  with  the  evidence  of  it  on  its  first  propo- 
sal, and  must  yield  assent,  without  seeking  help  from  any  princi- 
ples of  a  clearer  evidence ;  or  because  its  dependence  on  such  prin- 
ciples is  so  obvious,  that  the  conclusion  is  so  plainly  connected 
with  such  principles,  that  it  is  never  sooner  spoke  of,  than  its  con- 
nexion with  them,  and  so  its  truth  appears.  Of  the  first  sort  few' 
duties  can  be  said  to  be.  And  if  they  were  of  the  last  sort,  any 
person  of  a  tolerable  capacity  would  be  able  to  demonstrate  them 
upon  attention.  Now  how  far  it  is  otherwise  in  this  case,  who  sees 
not? 

Upon  the  whole,  I  must  conclude,  that  nature's  light  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  give  us  such  a  law  or  rule  as  may  be  a  sure  guide  to  those 
who  desire  to  go  right,  so  that  they  need  not  lose  their  way  or  mis- 
take their  duty,  if  they  have  a  mind  to  know  it,  nor  be  uncertain 
whether  they  have  done  it. 

It  will  not  relieve  the  Deists  to  pretend,  that  some  of  the  excep- 
tions above  mentioned  may  be  retorted  upon  Christians,  and  im- 
proven  against  the  scriptures :  For  nothing  but  ignorance  of  the 
true  state  of  the  question  can  give  countenance  to  this  pretence. 
The  scriptures  are  a  rule  provided  by  sovereign  grace  for  falleii 
man,  and  by  infiniU  wisdom  are  adjusted  to  God's  great  design  of 
recovering  man  to  the  praise  of  his  own  grace,  in  such  a  way  as  may 
slain  the  pride  of  all  glory.  They  are  sufficient  as  an  outward 
mean,  and  do  effectually  conduct  man  to  that  happiness  designed 
for  him,  under  the  influence  of  the  assisting  grace  provided  for  him, 
and  in  the  use  of  the  means  of  God's  appointment.  They  provide 
a  relief  against  any  unavoidable  defects  in  his  obedience,  and  direct 
to  the  proper  grounds  of  his  acceptance  in  it :  But  men  who  pre- 
tend nature's  light  is  able  to  guide  to  happiness,  are  obliged  to  shew 
that  it  affords  us  a  rule  of  duty  ;  which  of  itself,  without  the  help  of 
any  supernatural  assistance,  either  as  to  outward  means  or  inward 
influences,  may  be  able  to  lead  man  to  the  obedience  required  ;  and 
this  obedience  must  be  such,  as  answers  our  original  obligation,  and 


108  AN  INdTTIRY  INTO  THE 

upon  account  of  its  own  worth,  is  able  to  support,  not  only  a  hope 
of  acceptance  but  of  future,  nay  eternal  rewards.  For  such  as  are 
lift  to  nature's  light,  can  neither  pretend  to  any  such  outward  means, 
nor  inward  assistance,  nor  any  such  relief  against  defects  in  know- 
ledge or  practice,  as  the  scriptures  do  furnish  us  with.  Nature's 
light  Ijys  no  other  foundation  for  hopes  of  acceptance  or  reward, 
save  only  the  worth  or  perfection  of  the  obedience  itself.  And  this, 
if  it  is  duly  considered,  not  only  repels  the  pretended  retortion,  but 
gives  additional  force  to  the  foregoing  argument. 


CHAP.    VHL 

Proving  the  Insu^dency  of  Natural  Religion  from  its  Defects  as 
to  sufficient  Motives  for  enforcing  Obedience. 

IT  is  warmly  disputed  in  the  schools,  whether  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments be  not  so  much  of  the  essence  of  a  law,  and  so  included 
in  its  notion,  that  nothing  can  properly  be  stiled  law  which  wants 
them  ?  I  design  not  to  make  myself  a  party  in  those  disputes.  But 
this  much  is  certain,  that  laws  and  government  are  relatives ;  they 
mutually  infer  and  remove  each  other.  There  is  no  government 
properly  so  called,  that  wants  laws,  or  somewhat  that  is  the  mea- 
sure and  standard  of  its  administration.  And  there  are  no  laws 
where  there  is  no  authority  and  government  to  enjoin  them.— 
Whence  this  plainly  results,  that  obedience,  if  it  does  no  more, 
yet  it  certainly  entitles  to  the  protection  of  the  government.  And 
disobedience,  not  only  deprives  of  any  title  to  that,  but  lays  open 
to  such  further  severities,  as  the  government  shall  have  power  to 
execute  and  see  meet  to  use  for  its  own  preservation,  against  vio- 
laters  of  its  constitutions.  But  further,  to  wave  this  dispute,  the 
nature  of  man  which  proceeds  not  to  actions  save  upon  knowledge, 
makes  this  much  certain,  That  whatever  he  may  be  supposed  to 
be  obliged  to  in  strict  duty,  yet  really  in  fact,  he  uses  not  to  pay 
any  great  regard  to  laws  which  are  not  enforced  by  motives  or  in- 
ducements, that  may  be  supposed  to  work  with  him,  as  containing 
discoveries  of  such  advantages  attending  obedience,  and  disadvan- 
tages following  disobedience,  as  may  powerfully  sway  him  to  con- 
sult his  duty  as  well  as  his  interest,  by  yielding  obedience.  If 
then,  natural  religion  is  found  unable  to  discover  those  things  which 
ordinarily  prevail  with  man  to  obey,  and  carry  him  over  any  ob- 
structions which  lie  in  the  way,  it  can  never  be  supposed  sufficient 
to  lead  man  to  happiness  :  For  man  is  not  to  be  driven,  but  led  ; 
he  is  not  to  be  led  blind-folded,  but  upon  rational  views  of  duty 
and  interest.     That  natural  religion  is  ^u  this  respect  exceedingly/ 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      109 

d^eCtive  is  the  design  of  this  discourse  to  demonstrate.  All  those 
motives,  which  usually  have  any  influence,  may,  I  think,  be  brought 
under  the  following  heads.  1 .  A  full  view  of  the  authority  of  the 
lawgiver  and  his  laws.  2.  A  prospect  of  present  benefit  by  obe- 
dience. 3.  A  prospect  of  future  rewards  for  it.  4.  Fear  of  pun- 
ishment in  case  of  disobedience.  And  5.  Examples.  Now,  as  I 
know  no  motive  which  may  not  easily  without  stretch  be  resolved 
into  one  of  those,  so,  if  I  make  it  appear  that  nature's  light  is  lame 
as  to  each  of  them,  I  think  I  have  gone  a  great  way  to  disprove  its 
sufficiency  to  happiness.     Well,  let  us  essay  it. 

1.  The  great  inducement  to  obedience  is  a  clear  discover^/  of 
the  authority  of  the  lawgiver,  and  laws  thence  resulting.  This  is 
not  perhaps,  properly  speaking,  a  motive,  as  it  is  oft  used :  for  in 
very  deed  this  is  the  formal  reason  of  obedience  ;  a  regard  where- 
to gives  any  action  the  denomination  of  obedience,  and  entitles  to 
the  law's  protection,  and  other  advantages  ;  yet  certain  it  is,  that 
this  should  have  the  principal  influence,  flora  the  ground  just  now 
laid  down,  and  therefore  we  shall  here  speak  of  it.  It  will  prevail 
far  with  man  to  obey  the  law  of  nature,  if  nature's  light  clearly 
discovers  how  much  the  law-giver  deserves  that  place  ;  how  well 
he  is  qualified  for  it ;  how  indisputable  his  title  to  the  government 
is,  and  how  far  he  has  interposed  his  authority ;  that  the  stamp  of 
it  is  on  these  laws,  to  which  we  are  urged  to  be  subject ;  that  they 
bear  a  plain  congruity  to  his  sublime  qualifications  ;  that  he  is  con- 
cerned to  have  them  obeyed  ;  observes  the  entertainment  they 
meet  with ;  entertains  a  respect  for  the  obedient,  and  resents  diso- 
bedience. If  we  are  left  in  the  dark,  as  to  all  or  most  of  these,  it 
will  exceedingly  weaken  our  regard  to  the  law.  And  that  this  is 
plainly  the  case,  is  now  to  be  made  appear.  1 .  It  goes  a  great  way 
toward  the  recommendation  of  any  law  to  be  fully  satisfied  as  to 
the  qualifications  of  the  framer.  But  how  dark  is  nature's  light 
here  ?  It  discovers  indeed  his  power  and  greatness  :  But  its  no- 
tions of  his  wisdom,  justice,  clemency  and  goodness  are  exceed- 
ingly darkened,  by  the  seemingly  unequal  distributions  of  things 
here  below,  the  innumerable  miseries,  under  which  the  world  groans, 
and  other  things  of  a  like  nature  ;  that  truly,  very  few,  if  left  mere- 
ly to  its  conduct,  would  reach  any  such  discoveries  of  those  glori- 
ous properties,  as  would  influence  any  considerable  regard  to  those 
laws  he  is  supposed  to  make. 

I  dispute  not  now,  what  may  be  strictly  known  and  demonstrated 
of  God,  by  a  train  of  subtle  arguments.  For  I  would  not  be  un- 
derstood so  much  an  to  insinuate  the  want  of  objective  evidences  of 
the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  Deity.  Our  question  respects  not 
so  much  these,  as  mail's  power  of  discerning  them.  It  is  not  ab- 
solutely denied,  that  there  are  many  and  pregnant  evidences  of 
these   attributes   in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence  ;  our 


no  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

question  is  only,  Whether  there  is  such  evidence  of  those  perfec- 
tions, especially  in  God's  moral  government  of  the  world,  every 
where  appearing,  as  may  be  able  effectually  to  influence  the  prac- 
tice, and  affect  the  mind  of  man  in  his  present  state,  notwithstand- 
ing of  any  obstructions  arising,  either  from  the  inward  weakness  of 
his  faculties,  or  the  works  of  God  from  without,  which  to  the  dar- 
kened mind  of  man  may  have  a  contrary  appearance  ?  And  that 
which  I  contend  is,  That  such  is  the  state  of  things,  so  they  go  in 
the  world,  and  so  blind  are  men's  eyes,  that  there  is  not  so  near  and 
clear  evidence  of  these  things,  in  what  is  discernible  by  the  most  of 
men,  as  may  strike  strongly,  affect  powerfully,  and  have  a  lively 
influence  to  quicken  tO  practice.  If  our  governor  is  near,  if  he  is 
daily  conversant  with  us,  if  we  have  daily  indisputed  evidences  of 
bis  goodness,  wisdom,  justice,  clemency,  and  other  qualifications 
fitting  for  government,  without  any  actions  that  may  seem  to  be 
capable  of  a  contrary  construction,  or  even  of  a  dubious  one,  this 
enforces  a  regard  to  his  commands.  On  the  contrary,  if  he  is  little 
known,  if  his  way  of  management  is  hid  from  us,  if  there  are 
instances,  which  however  possibly  they  may  be  just,  yet  have  a 
contrary  appearance  to  us,  this  weakens  regard  and  quite  con- 
founds. And  this  is  plainly  the  case  as  to  God,  with  men  left  to 
the  mere  conduct  of  nature's  light,  not  through  any  defect  on 
God's  part,  but  through  the  darkness  of  the  mind  of  man  in  his 
present  state  ;  and  this  is  the  more  considerable,  that  we  use  to  be 
more  sensible  of  what  evil  any  is  supposed  to  do  us,  than  of  what 
good  we  may  receive  from  them.  Now  since  this  observation  is 
of  use  to  prevent  mistakes,  I  desire  it  may  be  carried  along  through 
the  rest  of  our  remarks.  2.  It  works  powerfully,  and  strongly  ex- 
cites to  obedience,  if  the  indisputableness  of  the  law-giver's  title, 
and  the  grounds  whereon  it  leans  are  clearly  known.  Now  as  to 
God,  the  giounds  of  his  title  to  the  legislative  as  well  as  executive 
power,  are  the  super-eminent  excellency  of  his  nature,  rendering 
him  not  only  fit,  but  the  only  fit  person  for  it  ;  his  creation  of  all 
things,  and  thence  resulting,  propriety  in  them  as  his  creatures, 
such  as  his  preservation  of  them  in  being,  his  providential  care 
and  inspection,  and  the  many  benefits  he  bestows  on  them.  But  we 
have  heard  already,  how  dim  the  discoveries  of  God's  super-emi- 
Dent  excellencies  are,  which  the  light  of  nature  affords.  As  to 
Bis  creation,  it  was  disputed  among  the  learned  and  quite  overlook-  • 
ed  by  the  vulgar,  amongst  those  who  were  left  to  nature's  light,  as 
baron  Herbert  well  observes  and  clears.  As  to  his  close  influence 
in  their  preservation,  it  could  not  be  noticed  or  known,  where  the 
other  was  overlooked.  His  providential  care  and  inspection,  which 
perhaps,  as  to  its  power  of  influencing,  would  go  the  greatest 
length,  if  it  can  be  proven  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  yet  cannot  cer- 
taiaJy  by  it  be  explained,  and  truly  ia  ao  darkened  by  many  obvi- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      Ill 

ous  occurrences  in  the  external  administration  of  the  world,  that 
pa3t  all  peradventure,  }t  can  never  suitably  affect  men,  who  have 
no  other'  discoveries  of  it,  than  the  light  of  nature  affords.  As  to 
God's  benefits,  thoygh  they  are  many,  yet  they  did  not  affect  so 
much,  because  they  were  conveyed  by  the  intervention  of  such 
second  causes  as  did  arrest,  instead  of  helping  forward  the  short- 
sighted minds  of  men,  and  detained  them  in  contemplation  of  the 
servant  who  brought  the  favour,  whereas  they  should  have  looked 
further,  to  him  who  sent  it ;  so  they  should  have  done,  but  so  they 
did  not.  Again,  some  of  their  most  valuable  benefits,  their  vir- 
tues, they  denied  God  to  be  the  author  of,  as  we  have  heard  above 
from  Seneca,  Cicero  and  Epictetus.  And  finally,  some  of  them 
were  inclinable  to  think,  that  the  benefits  were  more  than  counter- 
vailed by  the  evils  we  labour  under.  Thus  were  the  minds  of  men 
darkened,  and  so  they  had  continued,  if  we  had  been  without  reve- 
lation. 3.  It  is  of  much  force  to  influence  obedience,  if  we  have 
a  clear  and  satisfying  discovery  of  his  government  in  those  laws ; 
that  is,  that  he  who  is  thus  qualified  for,  and  rightfully  possessed 
of  the  government,  has  made  such  laws,  and  stamped  his  authority 
on  them.  However  great  ideas  we  have  of  his  excellency  and  title 
to  give  laws  ;  yet  this  will  have  no  weight,  if  we  are  not  clearly 
satisfied  that  these  are  kis  laws.  Now  how  palpably  defective 
nature's  light  is  here,  has  been  fully  made  out  in  the  last  chapter. 
4.  It  will  have  no  small  force,  if  we  had  a  clear  knowledge,  that 
these  laws  are  in  their  matter  fully  congruous  to  the  qualifications 
we  desire  in  a  law-giver,  such  as  wisdom,  goodness,  justice,  clemen- 
cy and  the  like.  But  as  these  attributes  are  either  not  known  or 
darkly  known  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  so  the  impress  of  them  on  the 
laws  of  nature  has  not  been  discovered,  nor  is  it  discoverable ;  for 
I  doubt  not  but  it  might  easily  be  made  appear,  that  the  whole 
frame  of  the  laws  of  nature  are  adapted  to  the  nature  of  man  as 
innocent,  and  endued  with  sufficient  power  to  continue  so,  which 
is  not  the  case  with  him  now.  And,  therefore,  how  to  reconcile 
these  laws  to  the  notions  of  God  and  man  is  a  speculation,  as  of  the 
last  consequence,  so  of  the  greatest  difficulty,  which  had  never 
been  got  through,  if  God  had  not  vouchsafed  us  another  guide 
than  nature's  light.  5.  If  the  law-giver  is  certainly  known  to  have 
a  great  regard  to  his  laws,  and  to  take  careful  inspection  of  the  ob- 
servation of  them  ;  this  will  be  a  strong  inducement  to  regard  them. 
But  here  nature's  light  is  no  less  dark,  than  as  to  the  rest.  The 
whole  face  of  things  in  the  world  seem  to  have  so  contrary  an  aspect, 
that  we  could  never  see  clearly  through  this  matter,  if,  without 
revelation,  we  were  left  to  judge  of  God  by  the  mere  light  of  na- 
ture. The  abounding  of  sin,  prosperity  of  sinners,  sufferings  of 
the  best,  and  the  like,  led  some  to  deny  God's  providence  and  gov- 


112  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

eminent  entirely ;  others  of  the  better  sort  doubted  of  it,  as  Clau- 
dian  elegantly  represents  his  own  case,  lib.  1.  contra  Rtifinum. 

Sape  mihi  dubiam  traxit  sententia  meniextti 
Cuvarent  superi  terras,  an  ullus  inesset 
Rector  &  incerto  fluerent  mortalia  casu. 
Nam  cum  dispositi  quzsissem  fcEdera  mundi. 
Prjcscriptosque  mari  fines,  annisque  meatus, 
Et  lucis,  notisque  vices  :  Tunc  omnia  rebar 
Consilio  firmata  Dei 

Sed  cum  res  hominum  tanta  caligine  volvi 
Adspicerem,  latosque  diu  florere  nocentes, 
Vexarique  pios  :  Rursus  labefacta  cadebat 
Religio  caussaeque  viam  non  sponte  sequebar 
Alterius,  vacuo  qnz  currere  semina  motu 
Affirmat  magnumque  novas  per  inane  figuras 
Fortuna,  non  arte  regl :  quae  numina  sensu 
Ambiguo  vel  nulla  putat,  vel  nescia  nostri.* 

I  know  that  Claudian  got  over  this  by  Rujimis^s  death,  but  such 
providences  have  not  always  the  like  issue,  and  I  only  adduce  his 
words  as  a  lively  representation  of  the  strait.  Yea,  to  so  great  a 
height  came  these  doubts,  that  it  is  to  be  feared  that  many  were  car- 
ried to  the  worst  side.  It  is  certain,  the  best  of  them  were  so  con- 
founded with  those  occurrences,  that  they  could  not  spare  reflec- 
tions full  of  blasphemy  upon  Providence.  The  famed  Cato's  last 
words  may  scarcely  be  excused  for  this  crime.  Finally,  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  there  was  so  much  darkness  about  this  matter,  that  none 
of  them  all  paid  a  due  regard  to  God. 

I  shall  now  leave  this  head,  after  I  have  observed  one  or  two 
things  ;  and  the  first  of  them  is,  That  however  some  of  these  truths 
above  mentioned  may  possibly  be  made  out  by  a  train  of  subtle  ar- 
guments ;  yet  such  arguments,  however  they  may  draw  an  assent 
from  a  tliinking  man,  not  only  transcend  the  capacity  of  the  vulgar, 
but  fail  of  exciting  and  affecting  even  the  most  philosophical  heads. 
For  to  draw  forth  our  active  powers  into  action,  the  inducements 
must  shine  with  a  light,  that  may  warm  the  mind  as  it  were,  not  on- 
ly dissipating  doubts  about  the  reality  of  what  it  observed,  but  also 

*  "  I  had  often  my  mind  distracted  v/ith  doubt,  whether  the  gods  took  care 
of  the  world,  or  whether  there  was  no  governor  in  it,  and  the  affairs  of  mor- 
tals fluctuated  under  uncertain  chance.  For  when  I  had  enquired  into  the  laws 
of  the  world,  as  disposed  into  order,  and  the  bounds  that  are  prescribed  to  the 
sea,  and  the  course  of  the  year  and  the  succession  of  day  and  night,  then  I 
thought  that  these  things  were  established  by  the  wisdom  of  God.  But  again, 
wlien  I  saw  that  the  affairs  of  men  were  involved  in  so  great  darkness,  that 
the  wicked  flourished  in  joy  for  a  long  time,  and  that  the  godly  were  harras- 
sed  ;  Religion  being  weakened,  expired,  and  I  against  my  will  followed  the 
tract  of  another  opinion,  which  supposed  that  the  seeds  of  things  have  a  blind 
motion,  and  that  new  forms  of  things  are  directed  through  an  immense  void, 
by  chance,  and  not  by  art,  and  which  supposes  that  the  deities  have  either  an 
ambigvious  sense  or  none  at  all,  and  that  they  know  nothing  of  u?." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      113 

shewing  its  excellency.  Upon  this  occasion  I  may  not  imperii* 
nentiy  apply  to  the  philosophers,  what  Plautus  says  of  comic 
poets  : 

Spectavi  ego  pridem  comicos  ad  istum  modum 
Sapienter  dicta  dicere,  atqiie  illis  plaudier 
Cum  illos  sapientes  mores  monstrabant  populo  : 
Sed  cum  inde  suum  quisque  ibant  diversi  domum, 
NuUusei-at  illo  pasto,  ut  illi  jusserunt.* 

"  I  have  often  seen,  that  after  the  comic  poets  have  said  good 
"  things,  and  that  they  have  been  applauded  for  them  while  they 
"  taught  good  manners  to  the  people,  as  soon  as  they  were  got 
"  home,  no  body  was  the  better  for  their  advice."  The  other 
thing  I  observe  is,  that  any  defect  as  to  the  knowledge  of  the  law- 
giver is  so  much  the  more  considfiral)le  than  any  other,  that  a  re- 
gard to  the  law-giver  is  that  which  gives  the  formality  of  obedi- 
ence to  any  action,  and  therefore  the  less  knowledge  there  is  of 
him,  the  less  of  obedience,  properly  so  called,  there  will  be.  Thus 
far  we  have  cleared  how  little  nature's  light  can  do  for  enforcing 
obedience  from  the  discoveries  it  makes  of  the  law-giver. 

2.  A  second  head  of  motives  to  duty  is  present  advantao'e. — 
Now  if  nature's  light  is  able  to  prove,  that  obedience  to  the  law  of 
nature  is  like  to  turn  to  our  present  advantage,  either  as  to  profit 
or  pleasure,  this  would  be  of  weight  :  But  it  is  needless  to  insist 
on  this  head  ;  for  who  sees  not,  that  there  is  but  little  to  be  said 
as  to  many  duties  here  ?  Are  they  not  to  cross  our  present  incli- 
nations ?  And  for  any  thing  that  nature's  light  can  discover,  dia- 
metrically opposite  to  our  present  interest  and  honor  ;  I  mean  ac- 
cording to  the  notions  generally  entertained  of  those  things  in  the 
world  ?  So  it  is  but  little  that  it  can  say  upon  this  head.  How  of- 
ten are  we  so  situated,  that  in  appearance  nothing  stands  in  our 
way  to  pleasure,  honor  or  profit,  but  only  the  command  ?  It  were 
easy  to  enlarge  on  this  head  ;  but  since  it  will  not  be  readily  con- 
troverted I  wave  it.  And  indeed  it  were  of  no  consideration,  if 
present  losses  were  otherwise  compensated  by  future  advantages. 

3.  If  nature's  light  can  give  a  full  view  o(  future  rewards,  then 
this  will  compensate  present  disadvantages,  and  be  a  strong  in- 
ducement to  obedience.  But  the  discovery,  if  it  is  of  any  use, 
must  be  clear  and  lively,  that  it  may  affect  and  excite,  as  has  been 
above  observed.  Well,  what  can  nature's  light  do  here  ?  Very  lit- 
tle, as  has  been  above  fully  dcmonstiated,  when  we  discoursed  of 
the  chief  end.  It  remains  only  now  that  we  observe,  that  evils 
and  disadvantages  discouraging  from  duty  are  present,  sensible, 
great,  and  so  affect  strongly  ;    wherefore,   if  future  rewards  have 

*  Le  Clerk  Parrhosiana,  page  52. 

15 


114  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

not  somewhat  to  balance  these,  they  cannot  have  much  influence* 
Now,  it  has  been  made  sufScieutly  evident,  that  all  which  nature's 
light  has  to  put  in  the  balance,  to  encourage  the  mind  to  go  on  in 
duty,  against  present,  sensible,  certain  and  great  discouragements, 
is  at  most,  but  a  darkj  conjectural  discovery  of  rewards,  or  rather 
suspicion  about  them,  after  time,  without  telling  us  what  they  are, 
or  wherein  they  do  consist.  Will  this  ever  prevail  with  men  toi 
obey?  No,  it  cannot.  The  prospect  of  future  rewards  was 
not  that  which  prevailed  with  the  most,  moral  amongst  the  Hea- 
thens of  old.  Their  knowledge  of  these  things,  if  they  had  any, 
was  of  little  or  no  use  or  influence  to  them,  as  their  excitement  to 
virtue. 

4.  Nature's  light  is  no  less  defective  as  to  the  discovery  of  pMn- 
ishments :  For  however  the  forebodings  of  guilty  consciences,  a 
dark  tradition  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  and 
Esome  exemplary  instances  of  divine  severity,  have  kept  some  im- 
pressions of  punishments  on  the  minds  of  many  in  all  ages  ;  yet 
it  is  well  known,  that  those  things  were  ridiculed  by  most  of  the 
philosophers  ;  the  poets'  fictions  made  them  contemptible,  and  the 
daily  instances  of  impunity  of  sinners  here,  weakened  the  impres- 
sions. Besides,  evils  that  follow  duty,  and  losses  sustained,  arc 
sensible,  present,  certain,  known,  and  so  affect  strongly,  and  there- 
fore are  not  to  be  balanced  by  punishments,  which  are  not,  or  ra- 
ther, at  least,  are  rarely  executed  in  time,  and  whereof  there  is 
little  distinct  evidence  after  time.  For  be  it  granted,  that  the 
justice  and  holiness  of  God  render  it  incredible  that  so  many  trans- 
gressors as  escape  unpunished  here,  should  get  off  so;  yet  certain 
it  is,  that  nature's  light  can  no  way  inform  what  punishment  shall 
be  inflicted. 

5,  Nature's  light  can  never  point  us  to  examples  which  may 
have  any  influence.  There  are  but  few  of  those  who  wanted  re- 
velation, even  of  the  philosophers,  who  were  not  tainted  with 
gross  vices.  We  have  strange  stories  told  of  a  Socrates ;  and 
3-et  after  all,  he  was  but  a  sorry  example  of  virtue.  He  is  fre- 
quently by  Plato  introduced  swearing.  He  is  known  to  have  base- 
ly complied  with  the  way  of  worship  followed  by  his  own  coun- 
try, which  was  the  more  impious,  that  it  is  to  be  supposed  to  be 
against  the  persuasion  of  his  conscience  ;  yea,  we  find  him  with 
his  last  brcTith,  ordering  his  friend  to  sacrifice  the  cock  he  had 
vowed  to  Esculapius.  M.  Dacier's  apology  for  him  is  perfectly 
impertinent.  He  is  accused  of  impure  amoure  with  Alcibiades, 
and  of  prostituting  his  wife's  chastity  for  gain.  It  is  evident  that 
in  the  whole  of  his  conduct,  he  shews  but  little  regard  to  God. — 
Such  are  the  examples  we  are  to  expect  here.  We  must  give 
full  as  bad  account  of  \\\e  famed  Seneca,  Avere  it  necessary  to  insist 
on  this  head,  Hot  to  mention  others  of  less  consideration. 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      115 

Now  to  conclude,  how  shall  we  by  nature's  light  be  prevailed  on 
to  obey,  while  it  gives  so  unsatisfying  discoveries  of  the  law  and 
law-giver  ?  Can  shew  so  little  of  present  or  future  advantage  by 
obedience,  or  disadvantage  by  disobedience  ?  Nor  can  it  offer  any 
examples  that  are  worth  following. 

It  is  certain  that  the  experience  of  the  world  justifies  this  ac- 
counts What  means  it,  that  instances  of  any  thing  like  virtue  are 
so  rare  where  revelation  obtains  not  ?  Sure  it  must  say  one  of  two, 
if  not  both  ;  that  either  nature's  light  presents  no  inducements  suf» 
ficient  to  influence  practise,  or  that  man  is  dreadfully  corrupt :  The 
Deists  may  choose  which,  or  both,  and  let  them  avoid  the  conse- 
quences if  they  can. 

It  had  been  easy  to  have  said  a  great  deal  more  on  this  head. 
The  subject  would  have  admitted  of  considerable  enlargement  ; 
but  this  my  design  will  not  allow.  I  intend  to  keep  close  to  the 
argument,  and  run  out  no  further  than  is  of  necessity  for  clearing 
the  force  of  that.  And  where  the  case  is  plain,  as  I  take  it  to  be 
here,  I  content  myself  with  touching  at  the  heads  which  clear  the 
truth  under  debate. 


CHAP.    IX. 

Shewing  the  Importance  of  knowing  the  Origin  of  Sin  to  the 
World,  and  the  Defectiveness  of  Nature's  Light  as  to  this. 

IT  is  not  more  clear  that  the  Sun  shines,  than  that  the  whole 
world  lies  in  wickedness.  The  creation  groans  under  the  weight 
of  this  unwieldy  load,  which  lies  so  heavy  upon  it,  that  it  is  the 
wonder  ef  all  who  have  any  right  notions  of  the  justice  or  holiness 
of  God,  that  it  is  not  sunk  into  nothing,  or  exquisite  misery  before 
now.  The  Heathens  made  bitter  complaints  of  it.  And  indeed 
if  their  complaints  had  been  left  upon  themselves,  and  had  not  been 
turned  into  accusations  of  the  holy  God,  none  could  have  wonder- 
ed at  them,  or  condemned  them.  For  it  is  manifest  to  any  one 
who  will  not  stop  his  ears,  put  out  his  eyes,  stifle  his  conscience, 
forswear  and  abandon  Ms  reason,  that  the  world'  is  full  of  sin ; 
what  nation  or  place  is  free  of  idolatnes,  blasphemies,  the  raging 
of  pride,  revenge,  perjuries,  rapes,  adulteries,  thefts,  robberies, 
murders,  and  other  abominable  evils  innumerable  ?  And  who  sees 
not,  that  all  these  are  the  effects  of  strong,  prevailing,  universal 
and  contagious  corruptions  and  depraved  inclinations  ;  from  a  sh^e 
of  which,  no  man  can  justly  pretend  himself  free  ?  And  if  be 
should,  any  one  who  strictly  observes  his  waj,  may  easily  implead 
him,  either  cf  gross  ignorance  or  disingenuity. 


116  AN  INaUlHY  INTO  THE 

To  know  how  things  came  to  this  pass  with  the  world,  and  trace 
this  evil  to  its  fountain,  is  a  business  of  great  importance  to  reli- 
gion :  Yea,  of  so  much  moment  is  it,  that  one  can  scarcely  tell 
how  any  thing  like  religion  is  to  be  maintained  in  tlie  world,  with- 
out some  competent  knowledge  of  it. 

1 .  If  this  is  not  known,  we  can  never  make  any  right  estimate 
of  the  evil  of  sin.  If  men  were  by  their  original  constitution, 
without  their  own  fault,  made  of  so  wicked  or  infirm  a  nature,  as 
that  either  they  were  inclined  to  it,  or  unable  to  resist  tempta- 
tions, amongst  the  throng  of  which  they  were  placed,  it  is  impos- 
sible for  them  to  look  upon  sin  as  so  detestable  an  evil  as  really  it 
is  ;  or  blame  themselves  so  much  for  it,  as  yet  they  are  bound  to 
do.  If  it  is  quite  otherwise,  and  man  was  originally  upright,  and 
fell  not  into  this  case,  but  by  a  fault  justly  chargeable  on  him,  it 
is  certain,  that  quite  other  apprehensions  of  sin  should  be  main- 
tained. Now  such  as  men's  apprehensions  are  about  the  evil  of 
sin,  such  will  their  care  be  to  avoid  it,  prevent  it,  or  get  it  re- 
moved. And  who  sees  not,  that  the  whole  of  religion  is  easily 
reduced  to  these  things  ? 

2.  If  the  origin  of  sin  is  not  understood,  man  can  never  under- 
Etand  what  he  is  obliged  to  in  the  way  of  duty.  If  we  derive 
this  weakness,  wickedness  and  depraved  inclination  from  our  first 
constitution,  we  can  never  look  on  ourselves  as  obliged  to  such  an 
obedience,  as  the  rectitude,  holiness,  and  purity  of  the  divine  na- 
ture, seems  to  render  necessary.  And  if  we  are  uncertain  as  to 
this,  we  shall  never  know  how  far  our  duty  extends.  And  if  we 
know  not  what  is  required  of  us,  how  can  we  do  it  ?  To  say  we 
are  bound  to  obey  as  far  as  we  can,  is  to  speak  nonsense,  and 
what  no  way  satisfies  the  difficulty  :  For  this  leaves  us  to  judge  of 
our  own  power,  opens  a  door  to  man  to  interpret  the  law  as  he 
pleases,  and  charges  God  with  such  folly  in  the  frame  of  the  law, 
as  we  dare  scarcely  charge  on  any  human  law-giver. 

3.  Without  the  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  sin,  we  can  never 
know  what  measures  to  take,  in  subduing  our  corrupt  inclinations. 
If  we  know  not  of  what  nature  they  are,  how  they  come  to  be  in- 
terwoven with  our  frame,  and  so  much  of  a  piece  with  ourselves, 
we  shall  not  know  v/here  to  begin  attempts  for  reformation,  or  if  it 
be  practicable  to  eradicate  them.  Andi  yet  this  must  be  done, 
otherwise  we  cannot  with  any  shew  of  reason  project  happiness. 
But  the  rise  of  corruption  being  hid,  we  shall  neither  know  what 
it  is  to  be  removed  or  where  to  begin  our  work,  nor  how  far  suc- 
cess to  attempts  of  this  kind  may  resaonably  h,e  hoped  for.  And 
cf  how  destructive  consequence  this  is  to  all  religion,  is  easily 
peen, 

4.  If  the  origin  of  sin  is  not  known,  we  wiil.be  at  a  loss  what 
thoughts  to  entertain  of  God's  holiness,  J7isiice  and  goodness,  yea 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       117 

and  his  wisdom  too.  If  our  natures  were  originally  burdened  with 
those  corrupt  inclinations  so  twisted  in  with  them,  as  now  we  find 
them  ;  or  if  we  were  so  infirm,  as  not  to  be  able  to  resist  a  throng 
of  temptations,  amons;  which  we  were  placed,  we  will  scarcely  be 
able  to  entertain  such  a  high  regard  for  God's  holiness,  goodness 
and  wisdom  in  our  make,  or  of  his  justice  in  dealing  so  by  us.—' 
«  And  if  we  suppose  otherwise,  we  will  still  be  confounded  by  our 
darkness  about  any  other  way  we  can  possibly  think  of,  whereby 
tilings  were  brought  to  this  puss,  and  mankind  so  universally  pre- 
cipitated into  so  miserable  a  case. 

5.  If  the  origin  of  evil  is  not  known,  we  shall  never  be  able  to 
j.udge  what  estimate  God  will  make  of  sin,  whether  he  will  look  oa 
it  as  so  evil  as  to  demerit  any  deep  resentment,  or  otherwise. 

6.  Hereon  it  follows,  that  the  whole  state  of  our  affairs  with 
God,  will  be  quite  darkened  and  become  unintelligible.  We  shall 
not  know  whether  he  shall  animadvert  so  heavily  on  us  for  our  sins, 
as  to  ruin  us,  or  so  slightly  pass  over  them,  as  not  to  call  us  to  an 
account.  If  the  latter  is  supposed,  obedience  is  mined  ;  consider- 
ing what  man's  inclinations  and  temptations  are  :  who  will  obey,  if 
no  ruin  or  hurt  is  to  be  feared  by  sin  ?  If  the  former  is  supposed, 
cur  hope  is  ruined.  We  shall  not  know  what  value  God  will  put 
on  our  obedience,  if  this  is  not  known ;  whether  he  will  not  reject 
it  for  the  sinful  defects  cleaving  to  it.  Nor  shall  we  know  whether 
be  will  pardon  us,  or  upon  what  terms,  if  we  know  not  what 
thoughts  he  has  of  sin.  And  this  we  know  not,  nor  can  we  possi- 
bly understand,  unless  we  know  how  it  came,  and  came  to  be  so 
twisted  in  with  our  natures. 

Finally,  hereon  depends  any  tolerable  account  of  the  equity  of 
God's  proceedings^  at  least  of  his  goodness  in  dealing  so  with  the 
world,  subjecting  it  to  such  a  train  of  miseries.  If  any  thing  of 
sin  is  chargeable  justly  upon  man's  make  and  first  constitution,  it 
will  be  much  to  clear  his  justice,  but  harder  to  acquit  his  goodness 
in  plaguing  the  world  so.  If  otherwise,  it  will  be  easy  to  justify 
God :  but  how  then  were  men  brought  to  this  case  ? 

Thus  we  have  shortly  hinted  at  those  grounds  that  clear  the  im- 
portance of  the  case.  An  enlargement  on  them  would  have  made 
the  dullest  understand,  that  without  some  satisfying  account  of  the 
origin  of  evil,  all  religion  is  left  loose.  The  judicious  will  easily 
see  it.  It  now  remains  that  we  make  appear  the  insufficiency  of 
nature's  light.     To  clear  this  point,  it  is  evident  if  we  consider, 

1.  That  most  of  the  wise  men  of  the  world  have  passed  over 
this  in  silence,  as  a  speculation  too  hard  and  high.  The  effects  of 
it  were  so  sensible,  that  they  could  not  but  notice  them,  as  the 
Egyptians  did  the  overflowing  of  their  Nile.  But  when  they  would 
have  traced  these  streams  up  to  their  source,  they  were  forced  to 
quit  it  as  an  unequal  chace.     The  reason  whereof  is  ingenuously, 


118  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

as  well  as  solidly  given  by  the  judicious  Dr.  Stillingfleet :  "  The 
*'  reason  was,  says  he,  as  corruption  increased  in  the  world,  so  the 
"  means  of  instruction  and  knowledge  decayed  ;  and  so  as  the  phe- 
"  nomena  grew  greater,  the  reason  of  them  was  less  understood : 
"  The  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  first  ages  of  the  world, 
*'  through  which  they  could  alone  come  to  the  full  understanding  of 
"  the  true  cause  of  evil,  insensibly  decajang  in  the  several  nations  ; 
"  insomuch  that  those  who  are  not  at  all  acquainted  with  that  his- 
"  tory  of  the  world,  which  was  preserved  in  sacred  records  among 
"  the  Jews,  had  nothing  but  their  own  uncertain  conjectures  to  go 
"  by,  and  some  kind  of  obscure  traditions,  which  were  preserved 
"  among  them,  which  while  they  sought  to  rectify  by  their  inter- 
"  pretations,  they  made  them  more  obscure  and  false  than  they 
«  found  them."* 

2.  Others  who  would  needs  appear  more  learned,  but  were  re- 
ally less  wise,  offered  accounts,  or  pretended  to  say  somewhat,  ra- 
ther to  hide  their  own  ignorance,  than  explain  what  they  spoke  of. 
So  obscure  are  they,  that  nothing  can  be  concluded  from  what  they 
say,  but  that  they  were  ignorant,  and  yet  so  disengenuous  and 
proud  that  they  would  not  own  it.  Among  this  sort  Plato  is 
reckoned,  and  with  him  Pythagoras,  who  tell  us,  "  that  the  princi- 
"  pie  of  good  is  unity,  finity,  quiescent,  streight,  even  number, 
"  square,  right  and  splendid  ;  the  principle  of  evil,  binary,  infinite, 
"  crooked,  uneven,  long  of  one  side,  unequal,  wrong,  obscure. "f  Plu- 
tarch as  is  noted  by  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  says,  that  the  opinion  of  Pla- 
to is  very  obscure,  it  being  his  purpose  to  conceal  it  ;  but  he  safth 
in  his  old  age,  in  his  book  de  Legibus,  If  }}  'uiviyfcu*  vSi  <tvf*,fioXv£e 
without  any  riddle  and  allegory,  he  asserts  the  world  to  be  moved 
by  more  than  one  principle^  by  two  at  the  least ;  the  one  of  a  good 
and  benign  nature,  the  other  contrart/  to  it,  both  in  its  nature  and 
operations  tj)»  fttv  ecyttBtjv  Ht»t,  TjjvJe  ivxirixv  rttirn  >^  f"*  tfxv- 
T/Ain  S'ti/tciupye)!- 

3.  Another,  and  perhaps  the  greater  part,  did  plainly  give  the 
most  absurd  and  ridiculous,  not  to  say  blasphemous  accounts  of 
this  matter.  Some  pretending  all  the  vitiosity  inherent  in  mat- 
ter, which  they  supposed  not  created.  The  folly  as  well  as 
wickedness  of  this  opinion,  is  well  laid  open  by  the  judicious  per- 
son last  quoted.  This  was  what  Plato  aimed  at,  as  Dr.  Stilling- 
fleet clears  from  Numenius,  a  famous  Syrian  Platonic  philosopher, 
who  is  thought  to  have  lived  in  the  second  century,  who  giving  an 
account  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato's  opinions,  says,  Pythagoras  ait, 
*'  Existente  providentia,  mala  quoque  necessario  substitisse  prop- 
"  terea  quod  sylva  sit  Sc  eadem  sit  malitia  pnedita  :  Platon&mqvt 

•  Origines  sacrx,  lib.  3.  cap.  3.  sect.  8. 
t  Origines,  sacrx,  ibid.  sect.  11. 


PEINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        119 

<*  idem  Nummvus  lavdat,  quod  ditas  mundi  animas  auhimnd  ;  un- 
"  am  beneficentissimam  ;  malignam  alteram  soil.  Si/lvam.  Igi- 
"  tur  juxta  Plaionem  mundo  bona  sua  Dei,  tanquam  patris  lib- 
"  eralitate  collata  sunt  ;  mala  vera  matris  sylva  vitio  coko- 
"  rescunt"*  The  plain  case  is,  they  thought  God  and  matter  eter- 
nally co-existeut,  and  that  vitiosity  was  inherent  in  matter,  and 
that  God  could  not  mend  it.  To  this  purpose  Maximus  Tyrius,  a 
Platonic  philosopher,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  speaks, 
"  That  all  the  evils  that  are  in  the  world,  are  not  the  works  of  art, 
"  but  the  affections  of  matter."f  Seneca  says,  "  Non  potest  ar- 
*'  tifex  mutare  materimn.^^X  This  way  the  Stoicks  went. — 
Though  they  who  have  studied  them,  pretend  that  there  was 
some  difference  betwixt  Plato's  opinion  and  theirs.  They  who 
would  desire  a  more  full  account  both  of  these  opinions,  and  the 
absurdity  and  impiety  of  them,  may  have  it  from  Dr.  Stillingfleet, 
but  a  great  many  of  the  philosophers  plainly  maintained  two  anti- 
gods,  the  one  good  and  the  other  evil.  The  Persians  had  their 
Oromasdes,  to  whom  they  ascribed  all  the  good,  and  Arimanius,  on 
whom  they  fathered  all  their  evils.  How  many  run  this  way, 
any  one  may  learn  from  Plutarch's  discourse  of  Isis  and  Osiris, 
and  judge  whether  he  himself  was  not  of  the  same  mind.  What 
was  it  that  drove  those  great  men  on  such  wild  conceits,  which  are 
so  absurd  that  they  are  not  worth  confuting  ?  Nothing  else  but 
their  darkness  about  the  rise  of  sin.  And  how  dismal  were  the 
consequences  of  those  notions  and  of  this  darkness  ?  What  else 
drove  so  great  a  part  of  the  world  to  that  madness,  to  worship  even 
the  principle  of  evil  I  Was  it  not  this,  that  they  entertained  per- 
verse notions  about  the  origin  of  evils,  both  of  sin  and  punish- 
ment ? 

4.  Not  to  insist  on  those  absurd  opinions,  the  latter  accounts  we 
have  of  this  matter,  by  persons  who  reject  the  scriptures,  after 
they  have  taken  all  the  help  from  them  they  think  meet  though  they 
are  more  polished,  are  not  one  whit  more  satisfactory.  For  clearing 
this  we  shall  offer  you  the  most  considerable  of  this  sort  that  have 
occurred  to  us.  We  shall  begin  with  Siraplicius  a  Phrygian  philo- 
sopher who  lived  in  the  fifth  century,  and  was  a  great  opposer  of 
the  scriptures.     He  in  his  commentary  upon  the  34th  chapter  of 

•  "  Although  that  there  is  a  Providence,  evils  necessarily  exist  in  the 
"  world,  because  matter  exists  in  it,  which  is  naturally  the  cause  of  evil.— 
"  And  Numenius  commends  Plato  who  thought  that  there  were  two  souls  of 
"  the  world,  the  one  most  beneficent,  and  the  other,  viz.  matter,  malicious. 
"  Therefore  according  to  Plato,  the  good  things  that  are  in  the  world,  are 
*'  conferred  on  it  as  it  were  by  the  liberality  of  its  father,  but  the  bad  things 
"  that  are  in  it,  originate  from  the  vitiosity  of  matter,  which  is  its  mother." 

t  Max.  Ter.  Scr.  25. 

4  €eneca  de  Provid.  "  The  \Yorkman  cannot  change  the  nature  of  the  mat- 
**  ter  on  wjbdch  he  works," 


120  AN  INQUmY  INTO  THE 

Epiotetus,  speaks  thus :  "  The  soul  of  man  is  nexus  utrimqut 

**  mundi,  in  the  middle  between  those  more   excellent  beings', 

«  which  remain  abore  (which  he  had  taught  to  be  incapable  of 

**  sin)  with  which  it  partakes  in  the  sublimity  of  its  nature  and 

**  understanding,  and  those  inferior  terrestrial  beings,  with  which 

"  it  communicates  through  the  vital  union  which  it  hath  with  the 

**  body,  and  by  reason  of  that  freedom  and  indifferency  which  it 

**  hath,  it  is  sometimes  assimilated  to  the  one,  sometimes  to  the 

**  other  of  those  extremes.     So  that  while  it  approacheth  to  the 

**  nature  of  the  superior  beings,  it  keeps   itself  free   from  evil ; 

**  but  because  of  its  freedom,  it  may  sometimes  sink  down  intd 

"  those  lower  things,  and  so  he  calls  the  cause  of  evil  in  the  soulj 

**  its  voluntary  descent  into  this  lower  world,  and  immersing  itself 

"  in  the  feculency  of  terrestrial  matter,"  much  more  he  adds  ; 

but  it  all  comes  to  this,  "  That  because  of  the  freedom  of  the  will 

^*  of  man,  nothing  else  can  be  said  to  be  the  author  of  evil,  but 

"  the  soul."*     We  have  likewise  an  account  from  the  Oracles  of 

Reason  much  to  the  same  purpose.     A.  W.  a  deist  in  a  letter  to 

Sir  Charles  Blount,  answering  an  objection  of  Sir  Charles  Wolse- 

ley,  against  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion,  gives  this  account : 

This  generally  acknowledged  lapse  of  nature,  that  it  came,  may 

be  discovered   by  natural  light ;  how  it  came,  is  reasonable  to 

conclude  without  revelation,  namely,  by  a  deviation  from  the 

right  rule  of  reason  implanted  in  us  ;  how  he  came  to  deviate 

from  this  rule,  or  lapse,  proceeds  from  the  nature  of  goodness^ 

originally  given  us  by  our  Creator,  which  reason  tells  us  to  be 

an  arbitrary  state  of  goodness  only  ;  therefore  not  a  necessary 

goodness  to  which  our  natures  were  constrained.     In  short  our 

fall  proceeds  from  our  not  being  able  to  reason  rightly  on  every 

thing  we  act,  and  with  such  beings  we  were  created  :    For  all 

our  actions  are  designed  by  us  to  some  good  which  may  arise 

to  us  ;  but  we   do  not  always  distinguish  rightly  of  that  good  : 

we  often  mistake   bomim  apparens  for  the  bonum  reale.     Der 

cipimur  specie  recti.     The  bonum  jumndmn  for  want  of  right 

reasoning,  is  preferred  to  the  bonum  hovestnm  ;  and  the  bonum 

viciniim,  though  it  be  less  in  itself,  often  carries  it  before  the 

bonum  remotum,  which  is  greater  in  its  own  nature.     No  man 

ever  held  that  we  could  appetere  malum  qua  malum  ;f  and 

therefore  I  wii!  not  grant  him  a  total  lapse  in  our  natures  from 

God.     For 'we  see  many  born  with  virtuous  inclinations  ;  and 

■  though  all  men  at  sometimes  err,  even  the  be&t,  in  their  actions, 

it  only  shews  that  we  were  not  created  to  a  necessitated  good- 

•  Comment,  in  Epict.  Cap.  .34. 

f  "  An  apparent  g'ood  for  a  real  good. — We  are  deceived  by  the  appearance 
of  rectitude — A  pleasing'  g'ood  is  preferred  to  an  honorable  good,  and  a  near 
to  a  distant  one,  but  we  cannot  desire  evil  as  svil.'' 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      121 

«  ness.  It  is  enough  to  prove  no  fatal  lapse,  that  many  are  prov- 
«  ed,  through  the  course  of  their  lives,  more  prone  to  do. good 
"  than  evil,  and  that  all  men  do  evil,  only  for  want  of  right  rea- 
«  fioning ;  because  the  will  necessarily  follows  the  last  dictate  of 
"  the  understanding;.''!  The  next  and  last  whom  we  shall  men- 
tion, is  the  learned  Herbert,  whom  the  rest  do  but  copy  after. — 
Thus  then  he  accounts  for  it :  "  Quod  ad  malum  culpce  spedaf, 
"  hoc  quidem  non  aliunde  provenire,  quern  ah  arhitrio  illo  omni- 
"  bus  iiisito,  ingenitoque,  quod  tanquam  bonum  eximium  Deus 
"  optimus  maximus  nobis  largitus  est  ;  ex  quo  etiam  a  belluis 
"  magis  quam  ipso  intellcdu  distinguimur :  quum  tamen  ades 
"  ancipitis  sit  naturce,  ut  in  utramque  partem  fiedi  possit  sit  ut 
*'  in  malum  scepe  propendeat  Sc  dilabatur  ;  caterum  per  se  est  be- 
"  nejxcium  plane  divinum,  ejusque  ampliludJnis  Sc  pvcestantioi,  ut 
"  citra  illud,  neque  boni  esse  possemu^  :  ecquis  enim  boni  ali- 
*'  quid  efficere  dicitur,  nisi  quando  in  adversam  partem  datur  op- 
"  tio  ?  Hinc  igitnr  malum  culpa  accidere,  quod  nohilissima 
"  animts  facnltas,  in  nequiorem  sua  sponte  partem^  nulloque  co- 
•'  gente  traducatur  detorqueaturque.^^ 

These  three  accounts,  in  several  respects,  run  the  same  way. 
It  were  easy  however  to  set  them  by  the  ears  in  some  considera- 
ble particulars,  and  perhaps  to  shew  the  inconsistency  of  the  se- 
veral authors  with  themselves,  on  these  heads  :  but  this  is  not 
my  design  to  spend  time  on  things,  whereby  truth  will  not  gain 
much  :  as,  perhaps,  they  contain  the  sum  of  what  reason  can 
say  on  the  head,  so  v^'e  shall  now  show  how  very  far  they  are 
from  satisfying  in  the  case.  The  substance  of  them  may  be  re- 
duced to  these  three  propositions  : 

1 .  That  Man's  body  sways  the  soul,  to  which  it  is  joined,  to 
things  suitable  to  itself,  which  are  evil.  This  Simplicius  more 
than  insinuates. 

2.  That  as  reason  is  the  guide  of  the  will,  which  necessarily 
follows  its  last  dictate  ;  so  the  will's  inclination  to  evil  flows  from 
our  not  being  able  to  reason  rightly.  This  the  Oracles  of  Rea- 
son give  plainly  as  a  response  in  the  words  now  quoted. 

t  Oracles  of  Rcison,  pag.  197. 

•  De  Religione  Gentilium,  Cap.  13,  pag".  164.—"  With  regard  to  the  evil 
"  of  sin,  this  arises  from  no  other  source  than  our  naturaV freedom  of  will, 
"  which  God  the  best  and  greatest  has  bestowed  on  us  as  a  distinguished 
"  blessing,  and  by  which  we  are  distinguished  from  the  brutes  even  more 
"  than  by  reason  itself.  But  as  this  blessing  is  of  so  ambiguons  a  kind,  that 
"  it  may  be  turned  either  way,  it  happens  that  it  often  inclines  to  evil  and 
"  goes  astray.  Yet,  in  itself  it  is  certainly  a  divine  blessing,  and  of  such  .in 
"  extent  and  excellency,  that  without  it  we  could  not  be  good.  For  who  is 
"  ever  paid  to  do  good,  unless  when  he  had  it  in  his  choice  to  act  in  a  difter- 
"  ent  manner  ?  The  evil  of  sin  therefore  proceeds  from  hence,  that  the  most 
'•  noble  faculty  of  the  soul,  of  its  own  accord,  and  without  any  one  forcing 
"  it,  is  drawn  away  and  turned  to  the  wrong  side." 

16 


122  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

3.  The  will  is  ancipitis  naturee,'^  perfectly  indifferent,  equallj 
capable  of,  and  swayed  to  evil  and  good.  This  all  the  three 
concur  in.  It  is  like  a  nice  balance  which  stands  even,  but  is 
easily  swayed  to  either  side. 

But  now  it  is  easy  to  multiply  difficulties  against  this  account, 
and  show  how  it  no  way  clears,  but  rather  involves  the  matter 
more.     And, 

1 .  I  would  desire  to  know  whether  that  inferior  part,  the  body, 
or  terrestrial  part  of  man,  call  it  which  you  will,  sways  to  any 
thing,  not  suited  to  its  original  frame  and  perfection,  or  not  ?  If 
it  aims  at  nothing,  bends  or  inclines  to  nothing,  but  what  is  per- 
fective of  itself,  I  desire  to  know  how  that  can  be  faulty  ?  How 
can  this  body  be  made  a  part  of  a  composition,  wherein  it  is  faulty 
for  it  to  aim  at  what  is  truly  perfective  of  its  nature  ?  How  can 
it  be  criminal  for  the  soul  to  aim  at  ennobling  and  satisfying  the  ca- 
pacities of  that,  which  is  so  nearly  united  to  itself  ?  How  is  it 
consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God,  to  unite  two  beings,  the  one 
whereof  cannot  reach  its  own  perfection  without  hurt  to  the 
other  ?  If  it  is  said,  that  it  inclines  to  what  contributes  not  to  its 
own  perfection  ;  then  I  desire  to  know  how  it  came  to  be  so  de- 
praved as  to  have  a  tendency  to  its  own  detriment  ?  How  was  it 
consistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God  to  make  it  so  ?  How  was  it 
consistent  with  the  goodness  of  Qod  to  associate  it  when  so  made, 
with  another  more  noble  being  to  which  it  must  prove  a  burden  ; 
yea,  which  must  sway  to  that,  which  proves  the  ruin  of  the  whole 
composition  ?  And  how  can  man  be  blamed  for  doing  that,  to 
which  his  nature  inevitably  must  carry  him  ?  For  if  he  is  thus 
compounded,  his  body,  earthly  part,  or  lower  faculties  sway 
to  evil  ;  his  will  is  equally  inclinable  to  both ;  and,  in  this  case, 
how  can  the  composition  be  otherwise,  than  depraved  ?  For  my 
part  I  see  not  how  it  could  be  otherwise  ;  or  how  God  can  just- 
ly punish  it  for  being  so,  upon  the  supposition  laid  down. 

2.  If  it  be  asserted  that  Me  are  not,  by  our  original  constitution 
able  to  reason  rightly,  in  what  concerns  our  own  duty,  as  we  have 
heard  from  the  Oracles  of  Reason  ;  then  I  desire  to  know  if  we 
are  not  necessitated  by  our  very  make  and  constitution  to  err  ?  If 
we  are  to  believe,  what  the  same  Oracle  utters,  that  the  will  must 
follow  neccssaiily  the  understanding  ;  then  I  desire  to  know,  if  we 
are  not  necessitated  to  sin  ?  If  things  are  thus  and  thus,  we  must 
either  believe  them  to  be,  or  believe  that  this  Oracle  gives  a 
false  response  ;  then  I  desire  to  know,  how  God  could  make  us  ne- 
cessarily evil  ?  How  can  he  punish  us  for  it  ?  Can  this  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  rest  of  this  doctrine,  about  the  arbitrary  state  of 
man's  goodness  ?  I  might  ask  not  a  few  other  queries,  but  per- 
haps these  will  suffice. 

*  Of  a  doubtful  nature. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      123 

3.  If  the  will  be,  in  its  own  nature,  perfectly  free  and  indiffer- 
ent, then  I  desire  to  know,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  that  com- 
position, whereof  it  is  a  part,  or  to  which  it  is  joined,  or  any  thing 
in  the  circumstances  wherein  man  is  placed,  swaying  it  to  the 
worst  side  ?  If  there  is  any  thing  either  in  man's  constitution  or 
circumstances,  swaying  him  wrong  ;  then  I  desire  to  know,  is 
there  any  thing  to  balance  them  ?  Whether  there  is  or  is  not 
any  thing  to  keep  him  even  ?  I  would  desire  to  know  how 
any  thing  came  to  be  in  his  constitution,  to  sway  him  wrong  ?  If 
there  is  any  thing  to  balance  these  inducements  to  sin,  or  inclina- 
tions, then  man  is  perfectly  indifferent  still ;  and  about  this  we 
ghall  speak  anon.  If  there  is  a  will,  equally  capable  of  good  and 
evil,  and  man  has  somewhat  in  his  constitution  or  circumstances, 
at  least  swaying  him  to  evil,  then  I  desire  to  know  how  it  was 
posisible  for  him  to  evite  it  ?  If  he  has  nothing  determining  him 
more  to  evil  than  to  good,  or  if  any  thing  that  inclines  to  evil  ie 
balanced,  by  other  things  of  no  less  force  determining  and  sway- 
ing him  to  good,  then  many  things  may  be  enquired :  how  comes 
it  to  pass,  that  though  man  is  equally  inclinable  to  good  or  evil, 
that  almost  all  men  choose  evil  ?  Yea,  I  need  not  put  an  almost 
to  it.  It  is  a  strange  thing  to  supppose  all  men  equally  disposed 
to  good  or  evil,  and  yet  none  choose  the  good. 

4.  I  do  not  know  how  this  notion  of  man's  liberty,  which  is 
easily  granted  to  be  in  itself,  if  the  notion  of  it  is  rightly  stated, 
a  perfection,  will  take  with  considerate  men,  that  it  consists  in  a. 
perfect  indifferency  to  good  or  evil ;  for  if  this  is  a  necessary  per- 
fection of  the  rational  nature,  without  which  it  cannot  be  called 
good,  as  Herbert  clearly  asserts,  in  his  words  above  quoted  ; 
then  I  ask,  what  shall  become  of  those  natures  unalterably  good, 
of  which  Simplicius  talks  ?  Is  it  absurd  to  suppose,  that  there 
may  be  such  ?  Are  they,  if  they  be,  less  perfect,  because  in- 
capable of  that  which  debases  and  depraves  them  ?  Is  God 
good,  who  has  beyond  dispute  no  such  liberty  as  this  ?  Is  an  in- 
differency  to  commit  sin  or  not  to  sin,  a  great  perfection  ?  If  it  be, 
is  it  greater  than  not  to  be  capable  of  sinning  ?  They  may  embrace 
this  notion  of  liberty  who  will,  and  fancy  themselves  perfect,  I 
•hall  not  for  this,  reckon  them  so. 

5.  This  account  of  man  as  equally  inclined  to  good  or  evil,  is 
cither  an  account  of  man's  case  as  he  now  is,  or  as  at  first  made : 
If  man  is  now  otherwise,  to  wit,  inclined  more  to  evil  than  to 
good,  how  came  he  to  be  so  ?  This  is  the  difficulty  we  desire  to 
be  satisfied  about.  If  this  be  the  case  he  was  made  in,  and  still 
continues  in,  then,  I  say,  it  is  utterly  false,  and  contradictory  to  the 
cars,  eyes  and  conscience  of  all  the  Avorld.  "Who  sees  not  that 
man  is  plainly,  strongly,  and  I  may  add  universally,  inclined  to 
evil  ?    The  wiser  heathens  have  owned  it.     And  it  is  plainly 


124  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

made  out  against  the  most  impudent  denier.  Hieroclis'  words, 
as  I  find  them  translated  by  an  excellent  person,  are  memorable 
to  this  purpose.  "  Man,  says  he,  is  of  his  own  motion,  inclined 
"  to  follow  the  evil  and  leave  the  good.  There  is  a  certain  strife 
"  bred  in  his  affections  ;  he  hath  a  free  will  which  he  abuseth, 
"  binding  himself  wholly  to  encounter  the  laws  of  God.  And 
*'  this  freedom  itself  is  nothing  else,  but  a  willingness  to  admit 
*'  that  which  is  not  good,  rather  than  otherwise."*  This  is  a 
true  state  of  the  matter  from  a  heathen. 

6.  The  supposition  of  man's  being  made  perfectly  indifferent  is 
injurious  to  God,  who  cannot  be  supposed,  without  reflection  on 
him,  to  have  put  man  in  such  a  case.  The  least  that  can  be  said, 
preserving  the  honor  due  to  the  divine  excellencies,  is  that  God 
gave  a  law  to  man,  suitable  to  the  rectitude  of  his  own  nature  and 
to  man's  happiness  and  perfection  ;  that  he  endued  him  with  an 
ability  to  know  this  law,  the  obligations  he  lay  under  to  obey  it, 
and  the  inducements  that  might  have  fortified  him  in  his  obedi- 
ence against  the  force  of  any  temptation  which  he  might  meet 
with.  If  this  be  not  asserted,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  keep 
God  from  blame,  which  all  that  oAvn  him,  are  concerned  to  take 
care  of :  for  how  could  he  bind  man  to  obey  a  law,  which  he  did 
not  make  known  to  him,  or  at  least  gave  him  a  power  to  know  ?  If 
he  laid  him  open  to  temptations,  and  made  him  incapable  of  dis- 
covering what  might  antidote  their  force,  if  he  m  ould  use  it,  what 
shall  we  think  of  his  goodness  ?  Further,  we  must  own  that  the 
will  of  man  was  made  inclinable,  though  not  immutably  so,  to  its 
own  perfection  :  how  else  was  it  worthy  of  its  author  ?  Finally, 
we  must  own  that  man  had  no  affection  or  inclination  in  him,  that 
was  really  contradictory  to  that  law  which  he  was  subjected  to, 
and  Avhich  tended  to  his  happiness  and  perfection.  If  this  is  de- 
nied, then  I  ask,  were  not  these  inclinations  sinful  ?  Was  that 
being  worthy  of  God,  that  had  no  tendency  to  its  own  perfection  ? 
But  on  the  contrary,  v\'^hat  was  inclinable  to  its  own  ruin  ? 

7.  This  being  the  least,  that  can  without  manifest  reproach  to 
the  wisdom,  goodness  and  justice  of  the  Creator,  be  supposed  in 
favor  of  man's  original  constitution  ;  I  desire  to  know,  is  this  the 
case  still  or  is  it  not  ?  If  it  is  not,  then  how  came  it  to  be  other- 
wise ?  How  comes  man  really  to  be  worse  now,  than  at  first  T 
How  is  this  consistent  with  the  deist's  principles,  that  there  is 
no  lapse  ?  If  it  be  asserted,  we  are  in  the  same  state  still,  how 
then  comes  all  the  world  to  be  full  of  wickedness  ?  How  is  this 
reconciieahle  with  the  experiences  and  consciences  of  men,  that 
assurer!  them  of  the  contrary  ? 

8.  If  it  be  thought  enough  to  resolve  all  this,  as  to  actual  fallings, 


*  Hieroclis   Carmin.  Aur.  Transl.  Reas.  of  Script,  Belief,  png'.  146. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       125 

Into  the  choice  of  man  ;  yet  what  shall  we  say  as  to  tliat  darkness 
as  to  duty,  which  we  heard  the  Deists  confessing,  in  their  Oracles 
of  Reason  ?  How  came  that  inability  to  reason  rightly,  which  we 
have  before  demonstrated  man  under,  and  which  our  adversaries 
will  own  !  Again,  how  come  we  to  have  vicious  inclinations  so 
strongly  rooted  in  our  natures !  Strong  they  are  ;  for  they  trample 
upon  our  light,  the  penalties  of  laws  divine  and  human  ;  yea  and  the 
smartings  of  our  own  conscience.  The  drunkard  and  unclean  per- 
son finds  his  health  ruined,  and  yet  in  spite  of  all  this,  his  inclina- 
tion makes  him  run  on  in  the  vice  that  has  ruined  him  :  and  the  like 
is  evident  in  other  cases  innumerable.  Deeply  rooted  they  are  ; 
They  are  some  way  twisted  in  with  the  constitutions  of  our  body, 
and  no  less  fixed  in  our  souls.  So  fixed  they  are,  that,  though  our 
own  reason  condemns  them,  it  cannot  remove  them.  Though 
sometimes  fear  restrains  them  as  to  the  outward  acts  ;  yet  it  can- 
not eradicate  the  inclination.  Instruction  and  all  human  endeavors 
cannot  do  it.  The  famed  Seneca  that  understood  so  much,  who  un- 
dertook to  teach  others,  and  perhaps  has  spoken  and  writ  better  than 
most  of  the  Heathens  ;  yet  by  all  his  knowledge  and  all  his  endea- 
vors, owns  this  corruption  so  deeply  rooted  in  himself,  that  he  ex- 
pected not  to  get  rid  of  it.  Non  jjerveni  ad  sanitatem,  ne  perveniam 
quidem :  delinimentia  magis  qnam  remedia  podagrce,  mece  compono 
contentus  si  rarius  accedat,  <§•  si  minus  ierminatur.* 

9.  Not  only  so,  but  further,  how  come  these  inclinations  to  be 
born  with  us?  Togrowupwith  us?  That  they  a»e  so,  is  evident.  We 
no  sooner  begin  to  act  than  to  act  perversely.  We  no  sooner  shew 
any  inclinations,  than  we  shew  that  our  inclinations  are  evil.  Yea, 
among  Christians,  where  there  are  many  virtuous  persons,  who  give 
the  best  example,  the  best  instruction,  and  use  the  best  discipline  for 
the  education  of  their  children  in  virtue,  yet  we  see  the  children 
discover  inclinations  so  strong,  as  are  not  to  be  restrained  by  all  these 
endeavors,  much  less  eradicated :  and  so  early  are  they  there,  that 
they  cannot  be  prevented  by  the  most  timeous  care. 

10.  It  will  not  help  the  matter  to  tell  us,  that  there  are  some  born 
with  virtuous  inclinations.  Fori.  If  all  are  not  so,  the  difficulty 
remains.  How  came  these  to  be  born  otherwise,  of  whom  we 
have  been  speaking  !  How  came  their  frame  to  be  different  from, 
nay,  and  worse  than  that  of  others  !  Are  they  under  the  same  law  ? 
If  so,  why  have  they  more  impediments,  and  less  power  of  obedi- 
ence ?  2.  We  would  be  glad  to  see  the  persons  condescended  on, 
that  are  void  of  vicious  inclinations,  that  we  might  ask  them  some 
questions.  You  say  you  are  born  with  virtuous  inclinations.  Well, 
but  have  you  no  ill  inclinations  ?  If  you  are  no  drunkard,  adulterer, 

„  *  ".  ^  ^^  ""*  '^"'"^  ^"  ^  noiind  state,  nor  shall  I  ever  arrive  at  it.  I  am  com- 
posing  palliatives  rather  than  remedies  for  my  g-out,  being  content  if  it  at- 
tacks mo  more  seldom,  .ind  proves  less  violent." 


126  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

&c.  yet  have  you  no  inclination  to  pride,  prodigality,  neglect  of 
God,  covetousness,  or  somewhat  like  ?  I  fear  the  man  that  can  an- 
swer plainly  in  the  negative  here,  will  not  be  easily  found.  And 
till  we  see  him,  we  deny  there  is  any  such.  3.  To  confirm  this, 
several  persons,  whom  the  world  has  looked  on  as  virtuously  inclined 
from  their  infancy,  have,  when  seriously  acquainted  with  Christian- 
ity, owned  that  they  were  as  wickedly  inclined  as  others  ;  only  by 
the  help  of  their  constitution,  they  were  not  so  much  prompted  to 
those  evils,  which  are  most  observed  and  condemned  in  the  world. 
And  this  account  has  been  given  by  persons  of  judgment,  whose 
capacity,  nor  ingenuity  cannot  reasonably  be  questioned.  Finally, 
the  ground  whereon  A.  W.  pronounces  against  an  universal  lapse, 
viz.  That  we  cannot  appetere  malum  qua  malumy*  is  ridiculous  : 
For  this  is  a  thing  perfectly  inconsistent,  not  only  with  the  due  ex- 
ercise, but  the  very  nature  of  our  rational  faculties  :  And  if  not- 
withstanding this  impossibility  of  any  man's  desiring  evil  as  evil,  so 
many  are  deeply  corrupted,  no  imaginable  reason  can  be  assigned, 
why  all  men  may  not  be  so,  without  supposing  that  we  can  appetere 
malum  qua  malum. 

To  conclude  then,  it  is  upon  the  whole  evident,  that  reason  can 
never  trace  this  matter  to  its  proper  source.  Our  consciences 
condemn  us  indeed,  and  so  acquit  the  Deity.  But  without  reve- 
lation we  can  never  understand  upon  what  grounds  we  are  con- 
demned by  ourselves,  nor  how  the  Deity  is  to  be  justified  ;  and  so 
this  sentence  of  our  consciences  involves  the  matter  more,  and  in- 
creases the  difficulty.  It  is  not  from  any  distinct  view  of  the  par- 
ticular way  how  we  come  to  be  guilty,  and  how  God  comes  to  be 
free  of  blame,  that  conscience  is  led  to  this  sentence.  And  there- 
fore, how  to  come  to  any  satisfaction  about  the  matter,  that  may 
liberate  us  from  the  inconveniences  above  mentioned,  which  are 
really  subversive  of  all  religion,  and  can  reasonably  be  supposed 
available  to  us,  reason  can  never  satisfy  us. 

Since  these  gentlemen,  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  find  it  their 
interest  to  deny  any  lapse,  I  shall,  to  what  has  been  said,  add  a 
short,  but  judicious  and  solid  confirmation  of  this,  from  a  person  of 
a  more  than  ordinary  reach,  I  mean  Dr.  How  :  who,  after  he  has 
quoted  many  testimonies  from  Heathen  authors,  proving  this  lapse, 
reasons  for  it,  and  confirms  it  further  from  arguments  not  easily  to 
be  answered :  His  words  run  thus,  "  If  we  consider,  can  it  be  so 
"  much  as  imaginable  to  us,  that  the  present  state  of  man  is  his 
"  primitive  state,  or  that  he  is  now  such  as  he  was  at  first  made  ? 
*'  For  neither  is  it  conceivable,  that  the  blessed  God  should  have 
"  made  a  creature  with  an  aversion  to  the  only  important  ends, 
«  whereof  it  is  naturally  capable  :  Or  particularly  that  he  created 


•  Desire  evil  as  evil. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      127 

"  man,  with  a  disaffection  to  himself;  or,  that  ever  he  at  first,  de- 
«  signed  a  being  of  so  high  excellency,  as  the  spirit  of  man  to 
«  trudge  so  meanly,  and  be  so  basely  servile  to  terrene  inclinations  ; 
«  or,  since  there  are  manifestly  powers  in  him,  of  a  superior  and 
"  inferior  sort  and  order,  the  meaner  should  have  been  by  original 
"  institution  framed  to  command  ;  and  the  more  noble  and  excel- 
**  lent,  only  to  obey  and  serve  ;  as  every  one  that  observes,  may 
"  see  the  common  case  with  man  is. 

"  And  how  far  he  is  swerved  from  what  he  was,  is  easily  con- 
•'  jecturable  by  comparing  him  with  the  measures,  which  shew 
"  what  he  should  be.  For  it  cannot  be  conceived  for  what  end 
"  laws  were  ever  given  him ;  if  at  least  we  allow  them  not  to  be 
"  the  measures  of  his  primitive  capacity,  or  deny  him  ever  to 
"  have  been  in  a  possibility  to  obey.  Could  they  be  intended  for 
"  his  government  if  conformity  to  them  were  against  or  above  his 
"  nature  ?  Or  were  they  only  for  his  condemnation  ?  Or  for  what, 
"  if  he  was  never  capable  of  obeying  them  ?  How  inconsistent  were 
"  it  with  the  goodness  of  the  blessed  God,  that  the  condemnation 
"  of  his  creatures  should  be  the  first  design  of  his  giving  them 
"  laws .'  'And  with  his  justice,  to  make  his  laws  the  rule  of  punish- 
**  ment,  to  whom  they  could  never  be  the  rule  of  obedience  and 
<'  duty !  Or  with  his  wisdom,  to  frame  a  system  and  body  of  laws, 
"  that  should  never  serve  for  either  purpose  !  And  so  be  upon  the 
"  whole  useful  for  nothing.  The  common  reason  of  mankind 
"  teacheth  us  to  estimate  the  wisdom  and  equity  of  law-givers,  by 
*•  the  suitableness  of  their  constitutions  to  the  genius  and  temper 
"  of  the  people  for  whom  they  are  made  ;  and  we  commonly 
"  reckon  nothing  can  more  slur  and  expose  a  government,  than  the 
"  imposing  of  constitutions,  most  probably  impracticable,  and 
"  which  are  never  likely  to  obtain.  How  much  more  incongruous 
"  must  it  be  esteemed  to  enjoin  such  as  never  possibly  could ! 
"  Prudent  legislators,  and  studious  of  the  common  good,  would  be 
"  shy  to  impose  upon  men,  under  their  power,  against  their  ge- 
"  nius  and  common  usages,  neither  easily  alterable,  nor  to  any  ad* 
"  vantage  ;  much  more  absurd  were  it,  with  great  solemnity,  and 
"  weighty  sanctions,  to  enact  statutes  for  bnite  creatures  :  and 
"  wherein  were  it  more  to  purpose,  to  prescribe  unto  men  strict 
"  rules  of  piety  and  virtue,  than  to  beasts  or  trees,  if  the  former 
'  "  had  not  been  capable  of  observing  them,  as  the  latter  were  not."* 
I  believe  the  Deists  will  not  easily  overthrow  this  nervous  dis- 
course. 


I)r.  How's  Living  Temple,  Part  2,  page  121,  122. 


128  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 


CHAP.    X. 

Proving  Nature's  Light  unable  to  discover  the  Means  of  obtain- 
ing Pardon  of  Sin,  or  to  sheiv  that  it  is  attainable. 

THAT  all  have  sinned  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  foregoing 
discourse.  That  it  is  of  importance  to  understand  the  rise  of  sin, 
and  that  nature's  light  is  unable  to  trace  its  original,  has  been  like- 
wise evinced.  But  all  this  were  indeed  of  less  consideration,  if 
nature's  light  could  assure  us  of  pardon,  or  direct  as  to  the  means 
wherebj'  it  may  be  obtained.  But  here  it  is  no  less  defective,  than 
as  to  the  former.  That  we  are  all  guilty  of  sin  even  the  deists  do 
acknowledge ;  the  Oracles  of  Reason  own  that  all  men  at  some- 
times err,  even  the  best,  in  their  actions.  And  the  evidence  of  it 
is  such,  that  none  can  get  over  the  truth,  if  he  is  not  plainly  r&- 
solved  to  deny  what  is  most  evident.  Now  this  being  the  case, 
that  we  have  all  transgressed,  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to 
know  whether  God  will  pardon  us,  or  upon  what  terms  he  will  do  it  ? 
If  he  punish  us,  what  a  case  are  we  in  ?  How  can  they  who  fear 
punishment  expect  rcAvards  !  But  because  this  is  a  difficulty  of  no 
small  importance,  and  the  Deists,  since  they  see  they  cannot  clear 
it,  make  their  business  to  obscure  the  importance  of  the  case,  and 
render  it  more  involved ;  we  shall,  therefore, 

1.  State  the  case,  and  clear  the  importance  of  it. 

2.  Discover  the  weakness  of  nature's  light  about  it. 

S.  Speak  fully  to  a  particular  exception  about  repentance. 

Sect.    I. 
Wherein  the  Importance  of  the  Difficnlfji/  is  stated. 

If  the  Deists  should  allow  sin  to  be  so  great  an  evil,  as  we  pre- 
tend it  is,  it  would  exceedingly  embarrass  them  ;  therefore  they 
labour  to  smooth  the  matter  by  telling  us,  that  either  it  is  no  evil, 
or  one  of  not  ^o  great  consideration,  as  is  commonly  imagined :  but 
the  wildness  and  unreasonableness  of  this  attempt  will  be  easily 
shewn,  by  a  consideration  of  the  evil  of  sin.  It  is  not  my  design 
to  write  largely  on  this  head,  but  only  to  condescend  on  a  few  of 
those  considerations,  whereon  we  insist  for  proving  sin  to  be  ex- 
ceeding sinful :  which,  although  they  are  built  on  rational  grounds, 
yet  we  are  led  to  them  by  the  assistance  of  revealed  light. 

1 .  Sin  is  a  transgression  of  a  km;  the  highest  law,  the  law  of 
the  supreme  and  righteous  Governor  of  the  world.  Where  there  is 
no  larv,  there  is  no  transgression.  And  such  as  the  law  is,  sucIj 
is  the  transgression.     There  is  no  more  just  \\-9y  of  measuring  the 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       129 

tvil  of  sin,  than  by  considering  the  law  it  violates.  The  law  bears 
the  impress  of  the  highest  authority,  that  of  the  Supreme  Ruler 
of  the  Universe.  Every  transgression  must  therefore  import,  if 
not  a  contempt,  yet  certainly  a  want  of  due  regard  to  this  author- 
ity, which,  how  criminal  it  is  in  man,  who  is  as  to  being,  preserva- 
tion and  well-being,  every  way  dependent,  is  easily  understood. — 
Moreover,  this  law  is  not  a  mere  arbitrary  appointment,  but  such 
as  is  the  necessary  result  of  the  nature  of  God  and  man  ;  and 
therefore  the  violation  of  it,  imports  no  less,  than  an  accusation  of 
the  rectitude  of  God's  nature,  whence  the  law  results  ;  and  charges 
unsuitableness  thereto,  upon  the  nature  of  man,  as  being  so 
made,  that,  without  wrong  to  itself,  it  cannot  be  subject  to  the 
rule  of  God's  government.  And  who  sees  not  how  deeply  this  re- 
flects on  God  ? 

2.  Sin  contradicts  the  great  design  of  man's  being.  God  made 
us,  and  not  we  ourselves.  It  is  blasphemy  to  alledge,  that  infinite 
wisdom  made  so  noble  a  creature  as  man  without  design.  Nor  can 
it  reasonably  be  pretended,  that  the  chief  aim  of  God  in  making 
him  was  any  other,  than  his  having  the  self-satisfaction  of  having 
acted  as  became  him,  and  having  made  a  work  every  way  worthy 
of  his  wisdom  and  holiness.  And  since  man  also  Avas  capable  of 
proposing  designs,  it  is  foolish  to  imagine,  that  God  either  could 
or  would  allow  him  to  make  any  other  his  chief  end  than  the  plea- 
sure of  God  ;  or  acting  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  he  was  every 
way  worthy  of  his  Author.  But  when  man  sins  he  plainly  coun- 
teracts what  God  designed,  and  he  was  obliged  to  design  ;  for  he 
pleases  not  God,  but  himself,  and  this  is  doing  what  in  him  lies  to 
frustrate  God  of  the  design  he  had  in  his  work,  and  debase  the 
being  and  powers  given  him  for  the  honor  of  God  by  employing 
them  against  him,  and  using  them  in  contradiction  to  his  declared 
will. 

3.  Sin  misrepresents  God.  The  works  of  God  bear  an  impress 
of  God's  wisdom  and  power.  Man  only  was  made  capable  of  repre- 
senting his  moral  perfections,  his  holiness,  justice,  truth,  and  the 
like.  But  when  he  sins,  he  not  only  fails  of  his  duty,  but  really 
misrepresents  God  his  maker,  as  one  who  approves  sin,  that  is  di- 
rectly cross  to  his  will,  Avhich  is  ever  congruous  to  the  holiness  of 
his  nature  ;  or,  at  least,  as  one,  who  either  wants  will  or  power  to 
crush  the  contravener;  and  so  he  is  represented  either  as  unholy, 
or  impotent;  or  one,  who  can  tamely  allow  his  will  to  be  counter- 
acted by  a  creature  that  he  has  made  and  sustains.  But  what  hor- 
rid reflections  are  these  on  the  holy  God  ? 

4.  Sin  accuses  God  of  want  of  wisdom  and  goodness  in  appoint- 
ing laws  which  were  not  for  his  creature's  good,  and  he  could  not 
obey  without  detriment ;  of  envy,  in  barring  the  creature  by  a  law, 
from  that  which  is  necessary  to  his  happiness ;  of  insufficiency,  to 

17 


V30  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

satisfy  the  creature  he  has  made,  while  he  is  obliged  to  seek  for 
that  elsewhere,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  him,  in  the  way  of  obe- 
dience ;  and  of  folly,  in  making  such  a  law,  as  cannot  be  expected 
to  be  obeyed,  in  regard  the  creature  subjected  to  it,  gains  more  by 
breaking  than  by  keeping  of  it. 

Finally,  to  crown  all,  sin  dethrones  God,  and  sets  the  creature 
in  his  room.  l^he  honor  of  God's  law  and  authority,  and  the 
sinner's  good,  are  wickedly  supposed  to  be  inconsistent,  and  tlie 
latter  is  preferred.  The  will  of  the  Creator  and  creature  cross 
one  another,  and  the  creature's  will  is  preferred.  The  friendship, 
favour,  and  sufficiency  of  Deity  is  laid  in  balance  against  some 
other  imaginary  good,  and  decision  is  given  against  God.  These 
are  a  few  of  the  many  evils  of  sin.  They  are  not  strained  ones. 
This  is  not  a  rhetorical  declamation  against  sin,  wherein  things  are 
unjustly  aggravated  to  raise  odium  against  it ;  but  a  plain  account 
of  a  few  of  the  evils  of  it,  which  yet  is  infinitely  short  of  w^hat 
the  case  would  admit.  But  who  can  fully  represent  the  evil  that 
strikes  against  infinite  goodness,  holiness,  justice,  wisdom,  and 
sjipreme  authority  ?  Who  can  unfold  its  aggravations;  save  he  who 
knows  what  God  is,  and  what  he  is  to  man,  and  what  man  is,  and 
how  many  ways  he  is  dependent  on,  subject,  obliged  and  indebted 
to  God  ?  Well  therefore  may  sin  be  said  to  have  an  infinity  of  evil 
in  it. 

The  Deists,  to  evade  the  difficulties  arising  from  this  evil  of  sin, 
take  different  courses.  Some  plainly  deny  any  such  thing  as  evil, 
or  that  there  is  any  thing  morally  good  or  bad.  Thomas  Aiken- 
head,  who  Avas  executed  at  Edinburgh,  Januarys,  1697,  for  his 
blasphemies,  in  his  paper  he  delivered  from  the  scaffold,  tells  us 
what  his  thoughts  were  in  this  matter,  and  upon  what  grounds  they 
were  built.  When  in  his  rational  inquiries  he  came  to  consider, 
whether  vre  were  capable  of  offending  God,  he  tells  us,  "  That 
"  after  much  pondering  and  serious  consideration,  he  concluded 
"  the  negative."  The  famed  Mr.  Hobbs  was  not  of  a  very  differ- 
ent mind,  for  he  plainly  asserts,  "  That  there  is  nothing  good  or 
*'  evil  in  itself,  nor  any  common  laws  constituting  what  is  naturally 
"  just  or  unjust  :  but  all  things  are  to  be  measured  by  what  every 
"  man  judgeth  fit,  where  there  is  no  civil  government ;  and  by  the 
"  laws  of  society,  where  there  is  one."  And  elsewhere,  "  Before 
"  men  entered  into  a  state  of  civil  government,  there  was  not  any 
"  thing  just  or  unjust,  forasmuch  as  just  and  unjust  are  the  rela- 
"  tlves  of  human  laws  ;  every  action  being  in  Itself  indifferent." 
And  whether  Spinoza  was  not  of  the  same  mind,  is  left  to  those  to 
judge,  who  have  time  and  leisure  to  trace  his  meaning,  in  his  ob- 
scure and  designedly  involved  way  of  writing.  But  surely  this 
proposition  in  his  Atheistical  ethicks  looks  very  like  it :  "  Si  ho- 
"  mines  liberi  nascerentur  (liber  aukm  est  juxta  Spinozam,  q\ii 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       131 

«  secundum  dudum'vel  ex  ductu  rationis  agit)  nullum  boni  ^  mail 
«  formarent  conceptum,  quamdiu  liberi  essent"*  Mr.  Hobbs 
has  been  learnedly  confuted  by  many,  such  as  Dr.  Cumberland, 
Mr.  Tyrell,  and  almost  all  who  write  of  the  law  of  nature.  Spi- 
noza has  likewise  been  examined  by  Wittichius  and  many  others. 
The  first,  viz.  Thomas  Aikenhead,  his  grounds  I  shall  purpose 
and  examine. 

The  first  in  his  own  words  runs  thus,  "  I  thought,  says  he,  a 
"  great  part  of  morality,  if  not  all,  proceeded  ex  arbiirio  homi- 
"  num,-f  as  of  that  of  a  kingdom,  or  commonwealth,  or  what  most 
*'  men  think  convenient  for  such  and  such  ends,  and  these  ends 
*'  are  always  terminated  upon  being  congruous  to  the  nature  of 
"  things  ;  now  we  see  that  according  to  men's  fancies,  things  are 
**  congruous  or  incongruous  to  their  natures,  if  not  to  the  body, 
*'  yet  to  the  thinking  faculty." 

The  sum  of  this  confused  discourse,  which  probably  he  learned 
from  Hobbs,  amounts  to  this  :  God  has  fixed  no  law  to  our  moral 
actions,  by  which  they  are  to  be  regulated.  These  which  are 
called  moral  laws,  are  only  the  determinations  of  governments,  or 
the  concurring  judgment  of  men,  concerning  what  they  think 
meet  to  be  done  for  their  own  ends.  That  which  some  judge 
meet  and  congruous,  others  may  find  unsuitable  to  their  nature 
and  ends,  and  so  are  not  obliged  to  obey.  But  1.  Are  not  all 
these  ungrounded  assertions,  whereof  no  proof  is  offered,  but  the 
author's  deluded  fancy  ?  Has  it  not  been  irrefragably  demonstrated 
by  as  many  as  discourse  of  moral  good  and  evil,  that  antecedently 
to  any  government  among  men,  we  are  under  a  law,  the  law  of 
nature,  and  that  this  is  the  will  of  God.  2.  If  all  these  had  kept 
silence,  does  not  the  thing  itself  speak  ?  What  can  be  more  evi- 
dent, than  that  there  is  a  law  of  nature,  and  that  this  is  the  law  of 
God  ?  We  are  certain,  that  we  are  made  of  rational  natures,  capa- 
ble of  laws  and  government.  We  are  no  less  sure  that  God  made 
us,  and  made  us  so.  It  is  self-evident,  that  to  him  who  made  us, 
it  belongs  to  govern,  and  dispose  of  us  to  those  ends  for  which  we 
were  made.  And  we  by  our  very  beings  are  bound  to  obey,  sub- 
mit, and  subject  ourselves  to  his  will  and  pleasure,  who  made  us 
and  on  whom  we  every  way  depend,  and  therefore  his  will,  if  he 
make  it  known,  is  a  law,  and  the  highest  law  to  us.  Again,  it  is 
clear  that  this  reason,  if  we  attend  to  it,  tells  us  that  some  things 
are  to  be  done,  and  ^me  things  left  undone  ;  such  as  these,  that 
we  are  to  serve,  love,  obey  and  honor  him  that  made  us,  upholds 
us,  and  on  whom  we  every  way  depend ;  that  we  are  to  carry  to- 

•  "  If  men  were  bom  free  (and  he  is  free  according  to  Spinoza,  who  acts 
"  according  to  the  gaiidance  of  reason)  they  would  form  no  conception  of 
"  good  or  evil,  as  long  as  they  were  free." 

t  "  From  the  will  of  man." 


133  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

ward  our  fellow-creatures,  as  it  becomes  those,  who  have  the 
same  original  with  us,  who  are  subjected  to  Ihe  same  rule,  are 
obliged  to  pursue  the  same  ends  ;  and  that  we  are  to  dispose  o  four- 
selves  as  the  author  of  our  nature  allows  us.  These  are  all,  if  not 
self-evident,  yet  next  to  it,  and  easily  deducible  from  principles 
that  are  so.  Further,  the  reason  that  is  implanted  in  us  by  God, 
tells  us  so,  we  are  to  take  what  it  leads  us  to,  while  duly  used,  as 
the  will  of  God,  and  so  a  law  to  us.  "  For  whatever  judgment 
"  God  makes  a  man  with,  concerning  either  himself,  or  other 
"  things,  it  is  God's  judgment,  and  whatever  is  his  judgment  is  a 
"  law  to  man ;  nor  can  he  neglect  or  oppose  it  without  sin,  being 
"  in  his  existence  made  with  a  necessary  subjection  to  God.  Such 
"  and  such  dictates  being  the  natural  operations  of  our  minds,  the 
*'  being  and  essential  constitution  of  which,  in  right  reasoning,  we 
"  owe  to  God  ;  we  cannot  but  esteem  them  the  voice  of  God 
"  within  us,  and  consequently  his  law  to  us."* 

What  he  tells  us  of  men's  different  apprehensions,  about  what 
is  right  or  wrong  makes  nothing  to  the  purpose.  That  only  shews 
that  in  many  instances  we  are  in  the  dark  as  to  what  is  good  and 
evil,  which  is  granted  ;  but  will  not  infer  that  there  is  no  fixed 
measure  of  good  and  evil.  In  many  general  truths,  all  who  apply 
themselves  to  think,  understand  the  terms,  and  have  the  truths 
proposed,  do  agree.  And  perhaps,  all  that  is  knowable  of  our  du- 
ty by  the  light  of  nature,  is  deducible  from  such  principles  of 
morality,  as  all  rational  men  who  have  them  fairly  proposed  to 
them,  must  assent  to.  And  deductions  from  laws,  when  duly 
made,  are  of  equal  authority  with  the  principles  from  which  they 
are  inferred.  And  finally,  when  men,  in  pursuance  of  their  per- 
verse natures,  follow  what  is  cross  to  those  dictates  of  reason,  they 
are  condemned  by  their  consciences,  which  shews  them  under  the 
obligation  of  a  law,  and  that  acting  in  a  congruity  to  their  natures 
as  corrupt,  is  not  the  standard  they  are  obliged  to  walk  by,  since 
their  own  reason  checks  them  for  doing  it.  They  who  would  de- 
sire to  liave  this  matter  fully  discoursed,  may  read  others  who 
have  done  it  designedly,  of  whom  there  is  great  plenty. 

His  second  reason  runs  thus  :  "  Also,  we  do  not  know  what  is 
"  good  or  evil  in  itself,  if  not  thus  ;  whatsoever  can  be  attributed 
"  to  God,  that  is  good  ;  and  M'hat  cannot,  is  evil.  And  we  know 
"  not  what  can  be  attributed  to  God,  but  such  things  as  by  a  de- 
"  duction  we  ascribe  to  him,  we  call  perfect,^  and  such  as  we  deny 
"  to  be  in  him,  we  call  imperfect,  and  so  we  must  ignorantly  com- 
"  mit  a  circle.  There  is  no  other  notion  of  things  in  themselves 
"  good  or  evil." 


Sir  Charles  Wolseley's  Scripture  Belief,  page  32,  33- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  iMODERN  DEISTS.         133 

It  is  much  harder  to  find  the  sense  of  these  words,  if  they  have 
any,  than  to  answer  the  argument.  The  design  of  it  is  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  standard  whereby  we  may  judge  what  is  good  ant! 
what  is  evil.  The  force  of  the  argument  amounts  to  this,  that 
there  is  no  way  how  we  come  to  know  any  thing  to  be  good,  but 
by  this,  that  it  may  be  ascribed  to  God.  But  we  cannot  know 
whether  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  God,  unless  we  know  that  it  is  per- 
fect or  good. 

This  is  thin  sophistry,  which  I  might  easily  expose,  were  it  to 
any  purpose  to  discover  the  weakness  of  that,  which  its  author 
was  ashamed  of  and  disowned.  As  to  the  first  proposition,  "  that 
there  is  no  other  way  to  know  whether  any  thing  be  good  or  evil, 
hut  this,  that  it  can  or  cannot  be  ascribed  to  God."  1.  The  com- 
plex proposition  is  false ;  for  there  are  other  ways  whereby  we 
may  know  things  to  be  good  or  evil.  And  this  holds  whether  we 
take  it  in  a  physfcal  or  moral  sense.  We  know  that  to  be  morally 
good  which  God  enjoins  us  to  do.  We  know  the  will  of  God  in 
some  instances,  from  the  nature  God  has  given  us  ;  and  from  these 
instances  our  reason  can  infer  others.  As  to  physical  good,  we 
know  things  to  be  good  or  perfect,  by  acquaintance  with  the  nature 
of  things,  and  by  the  self-evident  notions  of  perfection  :  for  there 
are  some  things,  such  as  dependence,  subjection,  and  the  like, 
which  without  any  reasoning  about  the  matter,  we  understand  to 
be  imperfect  or  perfect.  As  soon  as  we  understand  the  terms,  and 
know  that  a  perfection  is  that  which  it  is  better  for  any  being  to 
have  than  to  want :  and  then  what  these  particular  words,  depen- 
dence, subjection,  &c.  signify.  This  alone  overthrows  his  whole 
argument.  2.  The  maxim  which  he  fixes  as  a  standard,  that  it  is 
good  which  may  be  ascribed  to  God,  and  that  is  not  good  which 
may  not  be  ascribed  to  him  ;  if  it  is  taken  in  its  full  extent,  it  is 
false  as  to  moral  good,  of  which  the  only  question  is  :  for  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  it  is  good  for  man  to  be  a  dependent,  a  subject,  &c. 
which  cannot  be  ascribed  to  God.  If  it  is  taken  in  a  physical 
sense,  it  is  not  to  the  purpose  ;  and  besides,  it  would  even  in  this 
sense  need  some  caution. 

As  to  his  other  proposition,  "  That  Me  cannot  otherwise  know 
what  is  to  be  ascribed  to  God,  than  by  knowing  that  it  is  good  or 
perfect,"  it  can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  speak  of  good  in  a  moral 
sense ;  and  in  any  other  sense  it  is  impertinent.  If  it  is  under- 
stood in  a  moral  sense  it  is  likewise  false,  fur  we  may  know  that 
things  which  are  not  in  their  own  nature  moral  perfections,  belonsj 
to  Got!,  such  as  power,  omnipresence,  &c.  If  it  be  understood 
in  any  other  sense,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

The  next  head  that  he  adds  is,  "  That  all  men  will  confess  that 
"  any  thing  may  be  morally  evil  and  good  also,  and  consequently 
"  any  thing   decent  or  indecent,  moral   or   immnral.     Neither^ 


134  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

*'  though  there  were  things  in  themselves  evil,  (if  we  do  not  ap- 
"  prehend  other  things  instead  of  them)  can  we  have  any  inclina*- 
"  tion  thereunto  ?     Otherwise  the  will  could  wish  evil." 

But  1.  Who  will  grant  him  (in  any  other  sense  that  will  be 
subservient  to  his  purpose)  that  all  actions  are  indifferent  ?  I  know 
none  but  men  of  his  own  principles.  2.  As  for  what  he  pre- 
tends, that  we  cannot  incline  to  that  which  is  in  its  own  nature 
evil,  unless  it  be  under  the  notion  of  good,  I  see  not  what  this 
says  for  him  ;  it  is  enough  that  we  can  do  that  action  which  is 
evil  and  prohibited,  yea,  and  which  we  know  is  prohibited,  to  con' 
stitute  sin  and  make  the  sinner  deeply  guilty. 

But  not  to  insist  any  further  on  this  inconsiderable  trifler,  whose 
undigested  notions  scarce  deserve  the  consideration  we  have  given 
them ;  and  much  less  did  they  become  the  awful  gravity  of  the 
place  where  they  were  delivered.  There  are  others  of  the  deists 
who  think  it  not  safe  to  venture  thus  far :  because  in  effect  thi« 
overthrows  all  religion  and  establishes  plain  atheism  :  yet  they 
may  mince  the  matter  and  lessen  sin  as  much  as  they  can. 

Herbert  goes  this  way,  telling  us  the  sinner's  excuse,  that  *'  1 . 
"  Homines  simt  natura  sua  fragiles  peccatoque  obnoxii.  2. 
*'  Peccata  hominum  non  tarn  in  Dei  contumeliam,  quam  in  pro- 
"  priam  utilitalem,  sub  boni  alicujus  apparentis  obtentu  fieri  ple- 
"  rumque  ;  ac  licet  in  eo  homines  fallerentuTi  nihil  tamen  infen- 
*'  so  in  Deum  animo  patratum  esse.'^^  That  is,  "  Men  are  by 
"  nature  frail  and  liable  to  sin  :  and  they  do  not  sin  out  of  con- 
"  tempt  of  God,  but  for  their  own  profit,  while  sin  appears  un- 
"  der  the  shew  of  good.  And  although  in  this  men  are  deceiv-* 
"  ed,  yet  there  is  nothing  done  with  any  ill  design  against  God." 

A.  W.  in  his  letter  to  Charles  Blount,  pleads,  "  That  though 
"  the  offence  is  committed  against  an  infinite  being,  we  are  but 
"  finite  creatures,  who  commit  sin."f 

But  now,  as  to  the  first  of  these  reasons  and  excuses,  I  fear,  if 
it  plead  any  thing,  it  casts  the  fault  over  on  God.  Are  we  to  ex- 
cuse ourselves  from  our  frailty  ?  Well,  either  we  are  made  so  frail 
that  we  are  not  able  to  obey,  or  we  are  not ;  if  we  are  able  to 
obey,  then  where  is  the  excuse  when  God  requires  no  more  of 
us  than  he  gave  us  power  to  perform  ?  If  we  are  not  able,  then 
how  came  God  to  subject  us  to  a  law  we  were  not  able  to  obey  ? 
If  we  have  rendered  ourselves  unable,  is  not  this  our  fault  ? 

As  to  the  second,  "  that  w^e  do  not  sin  out  of  contempt  of  the 
Deity,  but  for  our  own  advantage."  I  answer,  1.  The  princi- 
ple that  the  sinner  goes  on,  according  to  this  apology  made  for 
him,  viz.  I'hat  the  thing  he  does,  though  it  crosses  the  law  of 
God,  yet  makes  for  his  own  advantage,  is  highly  injurious  to,  and 

•  De  Relig'.  Gentilium,  Cap.  5.  page  199. 
7  Oracles  of  Reason. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      135 

Wasphemous  against  God  :  for  it  supposes  that  God  has  barred 
man  from  what  contributes  to  his  happiness,  and  supposes  that 
more  advantage  is  to  be  had  by  disobedience,  which  is  a  high  ag- 
gravation of  the  fault,  2,  I  will  not  grant  him,  that  there  is  no 
opposition  in  the  heart  to  God.  What  though  there  be  not  plain, 
declared,  direct  and  open  hostility  ;  yet  there  is  an  alienation  of 
affection,  aversion  from  converse  with,  and  a  neglect  of  God  to  be 
found  with  all  in  more  or  less,  of  which  their  actions  are  a  suffi- 
cient proof. 

As  to  the  third,  "  that  an  offence,  though  against  an  infinite 
God,  is  lessened  by  the  consideration  of  the  sinner's  being  finite  :" 
I  answer,  1.  This  excuse  pleads  for  all  sin  alike  :  for  let  the  sin- 
ner sin  never  so  deeply,  yet  he  is  finite  still.  2.  If  this  be  well 
considered,  it  is  perfectly  ridiculous :  for  the  measure  of  sin,  its 
greatness  is  not  to  be  taken  this  way,  but  the  contrary  ;  for 
provided  the  object  against  whom  it  is  committed  is  infinite,  the 
meaner  the  person  is  that  commits  it,  the  greater  still  is  the 
fault. 

But  in  very  deed,  all  these  attempts  to  extenuate  sin,  as  they 
are  useless  to  sinners,  who  are  not  judged  by  man,  but  God,  and 
not  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  estimate  he  makes,  but  that 
which  God  makes  of  sin  ;  so  likewise  they  smell  rank  of  the 
want  of  a  due  regard  for  the  honor  of  the  Deity,  and  are  of  the 
worst  consequences  to  the  world,  since  they  tend  to  encourage 
sin,  open  a  door  to  impiety,  and  embolden  sinners  to  go  on  in 
courses  they  too  much  incline  to.  Besides,  such  excuses  for  sin 
do  but  ill  become  persons  who  make  such  an  horrible  out-cry 
against  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  upon  all  occasions,  as  having  a 
tendency  to  make  forgiveness  cheap  in  sinner's  eyes,  and  to  em- 
bolden men  to  sin  without  fear.  May  not  the  charge  be  here  re- 
torted ?  Who  gives  the  greatest  encouragement  to  sin,  he  that 
asserts  the  necessity  of  a  satisfaction,  or  he  who  extenuates  sin  to 
that  degree  as  to  encourage  the  sinner  to  hope  he  may  get 
off  without  a  satisfaction  ?  I  shall,  to  what  has  been  said,  subjoin 
a  few  words  from  a  late  discourse.  If  the  quotation  seem  long, 
the  excellency  of  it  will  easily  excuse  it ;  besides,  it  is  so  full  to 
the  purpose,  and  leads  so  directly  to  that  which  is  the  design  of 
what  has  hitherto  been  said.  "  Furthermore,  it  is  to  be  consid- 
"  ered,  that  the  rights  of  the  divine  government ;  the  quality  and 
"  measures  of  offences  committed  against  it ;  and  when  or  upon 
"  what  terms  they  may  be  remitted  ;  or  in  what  case  it  may  be 
'^  congruous  to  the  dignity  of  that  government,  to  recede  from  such 
*<  rights,  are  matters  of  so  high  a  nature,  that  it  becomes  us  to  be 
"  very  sparing  in  making  any  estimate  about  them,  especially  a 
"  diminishing  one.  Even  among  men,  how  sacred  things  are  ma- 
"  jcsty  and  the  rights  of  government  ?  And  how  much  above  the 


235  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  reach  of  a  vulvar  jiidprment  ?  Suppose  a  company  of  pea- 
"  saiits  that  understand  little  more  than  what  is  within  the  com- 
"  pass  of  their  mattock,  plough  and  shovel,  should  take  upon 
"  them  to  judge  of  the  ri2;hts  of  their  prince,  and  make  an  esti- 
"  mate  of  the  measure  of  ofieiices,  committed  against  the  majes- 
*'  ty  and  dignity  of  government,  how  competent  judges  would  we 
"  think  them  ?  And  will  we  not  acknowledge  the  most  refined 
*'  human  ni:derstanding  as  incompetent  to  judge  of  the  rights  of 
"  the  divine  government  ?  Or  measure  the  injuriousness  of  the 
"  offence  done  against  it,  as  the  meanest  peasant  to  make  an  esti- 
"  mate  of  these  matters  in  a  human  government  ?  If  only  the 
"  reputation  be  wronged  of  a  person  of  a  better  quality,  how 
"  strictly  is  it  insisted  on,  to  have  the  matter  tried  by  his  peers, 
"  or  persons  of  an  equal  rank,  such  as  are  capable  of  understand- 
"  ing  honour  and  reputation  !  How  would  it  be  resented,  that 
"  an  affront  put  upon  a  nobleman,  should  be  commited  to  the  judg- 
"  ment  of  smiths  and  coblers,  especially  if  they  were  participes 
"  criminis,^  and  as  well  parties  as  judges  ? 

"  When  the  repraliaf  of  the  great  Ruler  and  Lord  of  heaven 
"  and  earth  are  invaded,  his  temple  violated,  his  presence  de- 
*'  spised,  his  image  torn  down  thence  and  defaced :  Who  among 
"  the  sons  of  men  are  either  great,  or  knowing,  or  innocent  enough 
"  to  judge  of  the  offence  and  wrong  ?  Or  how  fit  it  is,  that  it  be 
"  remitted  without  recompence  ?  Or  what  recompence  would  be 
"  proportionable  ?  How  supposable  is  it,  that  there  may  be  con- 
*'  gruities  in  this  matter,  obvious  to  the  divine  understanding, 
"  which  infinitely  exceed  the  measure  of  ours. "J 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  easy  to  understand  the  import- 
ance cf  the  case.  All  mankind  are  involved  in  sin,  lie  under  this 
dreadful  guilt,  and  that  not  in  one,  but  in  many  instances.  Now 
if  they  are  not  sure  that  it  may  be  removed,  and  know  not  in  what 
way  this  is  to  be  done  ;  they  must  either  not  take  up  the  case, 
or  they  must  be  under  continual  disquietments,  dread  the  issue, 
and  fear  divine  resentments.  They  can  never  expect  any  re- 
ward for  obedience,  and  consequently  they  must  languish  in  it, 
and  so  all  religion  that  can  be  available  is  lost. 

Sect.    II. 

Shewing  the  darkness  of  Nature^s  Light  as  to  Pardon. 

THE  importance  of  the  case  being  thus  cleared,  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  demonstrate  the    insufficiency  of  nature's   light  to  help 

.  *  "  Sharers  in  the  crime." 
t  "  Royal  prerogatives." 
i  Dr.  How's  Living-  Temple,  Part  2.  page  "237,  238,  239- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       137 

out  of  this  strait.     And  that  we  may  without  fear  assert  it  so,  is 
evident  from  the  ensuing  considerations  : 

1.  That  h'dit  which  failed  men  so  far,  as  to  a  discovery  of  the 
otrait,  is  not  likely  to  help  them  out  of  it.  If  we  understand  not 
where  the  difficulty  lies,  and  hov/  great  it  is,  we  are  never  like- 
ly to  solve  it.  Now  it  is  undeniable,  that  a  great  part  of  the 
Viorld  understood  not  the  evil  of  sin,  or  of  how  vast  a  conse- 
quence it  was  to  be  assured  about  the  pardon  of  it.  The  prevar 
!eut  darkness  of  their  minds  about  the  nature,  holiness  and  jus- 
tice of  the  Deity  ;  their  own  natures  and  relation  to  him  ;  their 
Ignorance  of  the  nature  of  sin  ;  the  commonness  of  it  in  the 
world  ;  their  strong  inclinations  to  it,  and  other  things  of  a  like 
nature,  kept  them  from  apprehending  the  difficulty  of  the  case. 
But  above  all,  the  best  moralists  amongst  the  philosophers,  such 
as  Socrates  and  Plato,  seemed  utterly  unconcerned.  And  the 
reason  is  plain,  their  pride  blinded  them  so,  that  they  idolized 
their  own  virtues,  and  made  no  reckoning  of  their  sins. 

2.  They  who  had  a  little  more  concern  about  sin,  saw  some- 
what of  the  difficulty  of  this  matter,  but  found  themselves  at  a 
loss  what  way  to  relieve  themselves  :  and  therefore  they  had  re- 
course, some  to  philosophy,  music  and  mathematics,  for  the  purga- 
tion of  their  souls  ;  and  others  to  lustrations,  sacrifices,  and  diverse 
Avashings,  and  I  do  not  know  what  other  fancies,  which  had  no 
manner  of  foundation  in  reason,  no  suitableness  -to  the  nature  of 
the  difficulty,  no  divine  warrant,  and  therefore  were  never  able  to 
satisfy  the  conscience,  as  to  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God,  arid 
the  removal  of  the  guilt.  These  being  only  the  productions  of 
their  own  imaginations,  notwithstanding  of  all  these,  their  fears 
continued,  and  they  remained  under  apprehensions  that  even 
death  should  not  terminate  their  miseries,  as  Lucretius  himself 
sings : 

At  mens  sibl  conscia  facti, 
Praemetuens  adhibet  stimulos,  lerretque  flagcHis, 
Nee  videt  interea,  qui  terminus  esse  malorum 
Possit,  nee  qui  sit  panarum  denique  finis, 
Atque  eadem  mctnit  magis  haec  in  moi-te  gravescant.* 

3.  They  Avho  either  thought  somewhat  deeper  of  the  case,  or 
at  least  seemed  to  do  so,  especially  at  times  when  the  impressions 
they  had  of  divine  justice  were  quickened  by  some  terrible 
plagues  or  judgments,  had  recourse  to  things  that  were  so  far  from 
relieving,  that  they  really  increased  the  guilt,  I  mean  that  abomina- 

*  "-But  the  mind  conseious  to  itself  of  actual  guilt,  by  fearing'  punish- 
"  ment  applies  slings  to  itself  and  terrifies  itself  v/ith  wliips  :  nor  does  it 
"  see  in  the  mean  time  how  any  bounds  can  be  set  to  its  sufferings,  nor  what 
"  will  at  last  be  the  end  of  its  punisliment,  and  fears  lest  these  same  suifcr- 
"  ings  should  grew  more  grievous  at  death." 

18 


138  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

ble  custom  of  human  sacrifices.  This  cruel  custom  almost  uni- 
versally obtained  in  the  world,  if  we  may  believe  either  profane 
or  sacred  records  ;  of  which  Dr.  Owen  in  his  treatise  of  Vin- 
dictive Justice  gives  many  instances.  They  not  only  sacrificed 
men,  but  even  multitudes  of  them.  The  instances  of  this  kind 
in  the  sacred  records  are  known.  As  to  others,  Ditmarus  quoted 
by  Dr.  Owen  tells  us :  "  That  the  Normans  and  Danes,  every 
"  year  in  the  month  of  January  did  sacrifice  to  their  gods  ninety- 
"  nine  men,  as  many  horses,  doj^s  and  cocks."*  Clemens  Alex- 
andrianus  quoted  by  the  same  author,  tells  what  the  usage  of  the  na- 
tions in  this  matter  was,  and  on  what  occasion — "  Jam  vero  cum 
"  civiiates  (§•  gentes  tanquam  pestes  invasissent,  scBva  postularunt 
"  libamina ;  Sr  Arisiommes  quidcm  Messenius,  Itkometa  Jovi, 
"  trecentos  mactavit,  se  tot  8r  tales  rite  sacrificare  cxistimans,  in 
"  quihus  etiam  Theopompus  rex  Lacedamonvm  erat,  prceclarcc 
"  victima.  Tauri  autem  populi^  qui  hahitabant  circa  Tauri- 
"  cam  Chersonesum,  quoscunque  kospites  apud  se  ceperint,  Dianas 
"  Tauriae  eos  statim.  sacrijicant  (inde  inhospitalia  littora.) 
"  Hcec  tua  sacrijicia  Euripides  in  scena  tragice  decantat.^'f  Hera 
are  no  less  than  three  hundred  sacrificed  at  once,  and  among  them 
a  king.  Here  are  strangers  sacrificed.  And  any  one  that  will 
read  there  Avill  find  how  usual  it  was  to  sacrifice  their  children  and 
nearest  relations.  The  custom  is  barbarous,  and  fully  speaks  out 
the  despair  of  me.n  awakened  to  a  serious  consideration  of  sin,  and 
the  darkness  of  nature's  light.  If  it  could  have  pointed  to  any 
ether  thing  that  could  quiet  the  conscience,  civilized  nations,  such 
as  those  among  whom  this  custom  did  prevail,  vrould  never  have 
had  recourse  to  it. 

4.  It  is  no  wonder  tliat  men  should  be  brought  to  such  straits  ; 
for  they  wanted  the  knowledge  of  many  things,  that  were  of  ab- 
solute necessity  to  make  them  once  so  much  as  understand  what  a 
case  they  were  in.  They  knew  not,  nor,  as:  has  been  proved 
could  they  know  the  rise  of  sin,  and  therefore  could  not  know 
what  estimate  to  make  of  it,  nor  what  God  would  make  of  it. — 
They  knew  neither  the  extent  of  the  mercy  nor  justice  of  God, 
without  which  it  was  impossible  to  determine  in  the  case. 

5.  The  questions  that  must  be  resolved  before  the  mind  of  a 
sinner,  that  once  understands  his  state,  can  be  satisfied,  are  so  ma- 


*  Dr.  Owen  de  Justitia  Vindicatrice,  Cap.  4,  page  69. 

f  "  But  when,  like  the  plague,  they  had  over-run  all  states  and  nations, 
tliey  required  cruel  ofi'erings.  Aristomenes,  the  ISIessenian,  sacrificed 
three  hundred  men  to  Jupiter  Ithometes,  among  whom  likewise  was  Theo- 
pompus  king- of  the  Lacedemonians,  an  illustrious  victim.  And  the  Tauri, 
a  nation  in  Crim  Tartary,  whenever  they  caught  any  strangers  among  them, 
they  immediately  sacrificed  them  to  Diana  Taurica,  whence  their  shores 
were  proverbially  stiled  inhospitable.  Euripides  relates  these  sacrifices  of 
yours  in  a  trag-ical  manner  on  the  stage." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      139 

iiy,  so  Intricate,  and  so  palpably  above  the  reach  of  unenlightened 
reason,  that  it  is  foolish  to  pretend  that  nature's  light  will  or  can 
satisfy  the  mind  of  any  man  in  the  case.  Men  may  pretend  what 
they  will,  who  either  do  not. take  up  the  case,  or  who  are  other- 
wise themselves  satisfied  by  divine  revelation  ;  but  they  who  se- 
riously, and  without  partiality  or  prejudice  view  the  case,  will  have 
other  thoughts.  Who  will  give  me  rational  satisfaction  as  to  those 
and  the  like  questions  ?  Whether,  considering  the  greatness  of 
.sin,  the  justice,  wisdom  and  holiness  of  God,  and  the  honor  of  his 
government,  it  is  consistent  to  pardon  any  sin  ?  If  it  be,  whether  he 
will  pardon  all,  many  or  few  sins  ?  What,  or  what  degrees  of  sin 
he  will  forgive  ?  Whether  he  will  pardon  without  any  reparation 
for  the  honor  of  his  laws  or  not  ?  Upon  what,  or  what  terms  he 
will  do  it  ?  If  he  require  reparation,  what  reparation,  and  by 
whom  is  it  to  be  performed  ?  How  shall  we  know  that  he  has 
pardoned  ?  If  he  pardon,  whether  will  he  remit  all  punishment  due 
to  sin,  or  how  much  ?  Whether  will  he  merely  pardon,  or  will 
he  over  and  above  re-admit  the  sinner  to  grace,  and  to  as  entire  fa- 
vor as  before  he  sitmed  t  Whether  will  he  not  only  pardon,  but 
reward  the  sinner's  imperfect  obedience  ?  Unless  all  of  these  are 
resolved,  the  difficulty  is  not  loosed.  And  who  Avill  undertake  to 
resolve  them  and  give  rational  satisfaction  that  understands  the 
case. 

6.  These  questions  are  not  only  above  the  reach  of  man ;  but 
they  belong  not  to  him  to  judge  and  decide  them.  The  offence  is 
committed  against  God.  He  alone  understands  what  the  con- 
tempt of  hi:*  authority,  the  disorder  brought  into  his  government 
by  sin,  and  the  disobedience  of  his  creature  amounts  unto  :  what 
is  fit  to  be  done  in  the  case,  he  alone  is  judge,  at  his  tribunal  it  is 
to  be  tried.  Man  is  too  ignorant,  too  guilty  and  too  partial  in  his 
own  favor  to  be  allowed  to  judge  ?  Now  where  are  the  decisions 
of  God  in  the  case  to  be  found  ?  Are  they  legible  in  the  works 
of  creation  or  providence,  or  consciences  of  men  ?  In  the  works 
©f  creation  it  cannot  be  pretended.  The  works  of  providence 
afford  innumerable  instances  of  his  justice,  some  of  his  forbear- 
ing sinners,  even  while  they  continue  in  their  sin,  and  loading 
them  with  ontward  effects  of  his  bounty  :  But  where  irj 
the  sinner,  of  whom  we  can  say,  God  has  forgiven  him  ?  Or  said 
that  he  will  forgive  ?  The  consciences  of  men  read  them  some- 
times sad  lectures  of  justice  ;  but  never,  if  they  be  not  informed 
from  revelation,  any  of  forgiveness. 

7.  All  the  pretences  that  are  offered  for  relief  in  this  case,  are 
absurd,  vain  and  insignificant.  They  are  all  reducible  to  this  one 
head,  That  God  is  infinitely  merciful ;  but  this  gives  not  th« 
least  relief.     For, 


140  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

1 .  I  ask,  must  God  then  of  necessity  exercise  mercy,  or  is  the 
egress  and  exercise  of  this  mercy  necessary  ?  If  it  is  not,  but 
still  remains  arbitrary,  and  in  the  pleasure  of  God  whether  he  will 
pardon  or  not ;  then  I  inquire,  where  is  the  relief  pretended  ? 
Does  it  not  all  vanish  ?  Are  we  not  as  much  at  a  loss  as  before, 
whether  he  will  pardon,  or  how  far,  or  upon  what  terms  ?  If  it  is 
necessary  in  its  egress,  then  I  enquire,  how  is  this  reconcileable 
with  the  notion  of  mercy,  that  seems  to  respect  voluntary  and  un- 
deserved acts  of  favor  shown  to  them,  to  whom  God  was  not 
obliged  to  show  any  ?  How  is  this  reconcileable  to  or  consistent 
with  justice,  which  is  exercised  in  pmiishing  sinners?  By  what 
arguments  can  this  be  made  appear  ?  Whence  is  it  that  there 
are  so  many  acts  of  justice,  and  no  instances  known  to,  or  know- 
able  by  the  light  of  nature,  of  God's  having  pardoned  any  ? 

2.  Mercy  is  either  unlimited  in  its  egress  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is 
limited  and  cannot  be  exercised,  but  upon  such  and  such  provisos 
as  make  the  exercise  of  it  consistent  with  God's  aversion  to  sin, 
and  with  the  regard  he  has  for  the  authority  of  his  laws,  the 
concern  he  has  for  the  honor  of  his  government,  and  his  justice, 
wisdom  and  holiness,  then  we  are  where  we  were  before  :  For 
who  can  tell  whether  it  be  consistent  with  these  things  to  pardon  ? 
In  what  case  and  upon  what  provisos  :  if  it  is  not  limited  to  any 
such  qualifications,  then  I  desire  to  know,  how  tliis  is  reconcilea- 
ble to  his  nature  ?  How  is  such  mercy  consistent  with  any  exer- 
cise of  justice  at  all  ?  What  account  can  be  given  of  the  direful 
effects  of  justice,  whereof  the  world  is  full  ?  By  what  means  can 
it  be  reconciled  to  the  holiness  of  God's  nature  to  pardon  impeni- 
tent sinners  ?  What  need  is  there  for  any  to  guard  against  sin, 
since  upon  this  supposition,  all  sin  shall  be  forgiven  ? 

3.  Is  infinite  mercy  universal  in  its  extent  ?  If  it  is  not,  then  I 
desire  to  knovr,  what  sins,  w^hat  sinners  shall  he  pardoned  T  How 
shall  any  know  whether  his  sins  are  the  sins  that  are  to  be  pardon- 
ed ?  If  it  is  universal  in  its  extent,  and  all  sins  must  be  pardoned  ; 
then  is  there  not  a  door  opened  for  all  sin  ?  How  can  this  be  pro- 
ven ?  Why  have  we  no  evidence  of  this  in  God's  providential 
dealing  ?  Whence  have  we  so  many  evidences  of  the  contrary  ? 
If  it  is  said  that  mercy  must  more  or  less  be  exercised  towards 
all,  then  I  inquire,  who  tells  us  so  ?  Hew  far  shall  it  be  exercised  ? 
Will  it  pardon  ail  cr  part  ?  Upon  what  terms  ?  Will  it  not  only 
pardon,  but  remunerate  the  guilty  ? 

'  4.  I  inquire  who  are  the  proper  objects  of  mercy  ?  Or  what  is 
requisite  to  constitute  the  proper  object  of  it  ?  Amongst  men,  the 
proper  object  of  that  mercy  which  belongs  to  governors,  is  not  sin 
and  misery.  To  spare  and  pardon  upon  this  score  only,  is  a  plain 
vice  in  men,  especially  in  governors.  But  the  object  of  mercy  is 
such  sin  and  misery,  as  is  consistent  with  the  honor  and  good  of 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  xlIODERN  DEISTf^!.      141 

the  governor,  government  and  the  governed  to  pardon.  No-.r,  if 
it  be  thus  in  this  case,  then  I  sec  nothing,  but  we  are  where  we 
were,  and  are  plunged  into  all  our  difficulties  ;  and  why  it  should 
not  be  thus,  I  see  no  reason.  For  there  is  no  man  Avho  knows 
what  God  is,  what  sin  is,  what  justice  is,  that  will  say  it  is  con^sa- 
tent  with  the  honor,  justice,  wisdom  and  holiness  of  God  to  par- 
don impenitent  sinners,  going  on  in  their  sins.  And  when  they 
say,  that  his  mercy  only  requires  hira  to  pardon  penitent  sinners, 
then  this  plainly  says,  that  the  exercise  of  his  mercy  is  confined 
to  those  Ti  ho  are  its  proper  objects,  that  is,  not  to  miserable  sin- 
ners, for  the  impenitent  are  most  so  ;  but  to  those  whom  he  may 
spare,  in  a  decorum  to  his  government  and  congruity  to  his  other 
perfections.  And  indeed  this  is  what  cannot  in  reason  be  denied  : 
and  when  it  is  granted,  then  it  remains  a  question,  not  yet  decided, 
nor  indeed  determinable  by  reason,  whether  repentance  alone  is 
sufficient  to  this  purpose  ? 

5.  The  case  of  justice  and  mercy  are  quite  different  as  to  their 
egress  :  For  justice  has  respect  to  a  fixed  rule,  an  universal  rule, 
and  requires  that  regard  be  had  to  it,  in  dealing  with  all  that  are 
under  that  rule  :  whereas  mercy  only  is  conversant  about  particu- 
lar instances,  according  to  the  wisdom  and  pleasure  of  him  in  whom 
it  resides. 

6.  The  infiniteness  of  either  of  these  attributes,  neither  requires 
nor  admits,  that  there  be  infinite  numbers  of  inr.tances  of  either  : 
but  that  the  acts  of  justice  and  mercy  be  such  as  becomes  the 
infinite  nature  of  God,  when  it  is  proper  to  exercise  them,  or 
when  the  wisdom,  holiness,  justice  or  mercy  of  God  require  that 
they  be  exercised. 

But  the  Deists  object,  1 .  "  That  upon  supposition  that  God  will 
"  not  pardon  sin,  there  is  no  use  of  his  mercy."*  I  ansAver,  we 
do  not  say  he  will  not  pardon  sin  ;  bat  v,-c  siiy,  nature's  light  can- 
not tell  whether  he  will  pardon  It  or  not,  or  whaL  Is  the  case  where- 
in mercy  takes  place.  We  own  its  use,  but  we  say,  nature's  light 
cannot  tell  when  and  how  It  is  proper   to  exercise  it. 

Again,  It  is  pretended,  "  That  God  Is  Infmitely  merciful,  then 
"  he  must  as  the  least  of  Its  operations  pardon  the  greatest  of 
"  sins,"f  This  Is  plainly  denied,  and  vre  have  told  wherefore 
above. 

It  is  further  pretended,  "  That  justice  has  done  Its  business, 
«  when  It  has  condemned  the  sinner,  and  then  mercy  brings  him 
"  off  :"J  but  this  Is  gross  Ignorance.  It  belongs  as  much  to  jus- 
tice to  take  care  that  its  sentence  be  executed,  as  to  see  It  passed. 

Again,  it  is  urged,  "  That  though  God  be  infinitely  just  as  well 
"  as  merciful,  yet  his  justice  Is  only  as  inherent,  not  as  extenslvo 

*  Aikenhead's  Speech.  t  ^^''^  •  ^^^'^ 


142  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

*'  as  his  mercy  toward  us  :  for  we  are  punished  only  according  to 
*'  our  deservings,  but  mercy  is  shown  us  above  our  deservlngs."* 
The  first  part  is  false.  The  very  contrary  assertion,  viz.  that 
justice  is  more  extensive,  is  true,  as  has  been  cleared  above,  if  we 
respect  the  number  of  objects.  The  proof  of  it  is  a  plain  sophism. 
For  1 .  It  is  not  true  that  mercy  bestows  its  effects,  which  in  their 
nature  are  above  our  deservings,  to  more  persons  than  justice  gives 
its  effects,  which  are  according  to  desert.  2.  The  effects  of 
mercy  are  not  more  above  deserving,  than  the  effects  of  justice 
are  according  to  it.  3.  The  effects  of  justice  are  with  infinite  ex- 
actness proportioned  to  deservings.  And  all  that  can  be  said  is, 
that  the  effects  of  mercy  are  suited  to  the  nature  of  infinite  mercy, 
not  that  they  are  given  to  infinite  number  of  persons,  or  infinite 
degrees. 

Further,  it  is  pretended,  "  That  God  with  whom  we  have  to 
*'  do,  is  a  Father  who  will  not  animadvert  severely  upon  his  peni- 
*'  tent  son."f  I  answer,  as  he  is  a  father,  so  he  is  a  righteous 
judge.  Further,  though  he  be  a  father,  yet  he  is  not  such  a  father 
as  men  are,  infirm,  liable  to  failings,  that  needs  his  children,  that 
may  give  them  occasion  or  temptation  to  offend,  that  is  of  the 
same  nature  with  them.  And  hence  no  firm  argument  can  be  in- 
ferred from  any  thing  that  is  known  in  this  matter  by  the  light  of 
nature.  Besides,  the  meanest  offence  against  God  is  more  atro- 
cious, than  the  greatest  offence  against  one's  natural  father.  For 
which  nevertheless  there  is  no  forgiveness,  but  punishment  without 
mercy,  by  the  law  of  nations  and  nature. 

Finally,  all  these  are  but  generals,  that  may  well  raise  suspi- 
cions in  the  minds  of  men,  but  can  never  give  particular  satisfac- 
tion to  any  one  man,  as  to  his  case,  or  any  one  of  the  particular 
diflSculties  that  have  been  mentioned.  They  no  more  satisfy,  than 
those  notions  that  generally  prevailed,  of  the  placability  of  the 
Deity,  which  had  iheir  rise  at  first  from  revelation,  were  continued 
by  the  necessity  of  sinners,  v/ho  having  challenges  for  sin,  behoov- 
ed to  take  sanctuary  some  where,  and  handed  down  by  tradition  : 
But  being  general,  and  leaving  men  at  a  loss  about  the  means  of 
atoning  the  Deity,  were  really  of  no  use  if  not  to  keep  men  from 
running  into  downright  despair,  and  keep  them  up  in  attendance 
upon  somewhat  that  looked  like  religion  ;  but  whereon  the  minds 
of  such  as  really  understood  any  thing  of  the  case,  could  never 
find  satisfaction. 

There  is  only  one  thing  that  seems  of  any  moment,  that  is  ob- 
jected to  all  this  ;  and  that  is,  that  nature's  light  which  discovers 
the  sore,    discovers  a  salve  for  it,  to  wit,  repentance,  to  which  we 

*  A.  W.  in  his  Letter,  Oracles  of  Reason. 

t  Blount's  Relig-.  La^^ i.  page  69.  Herbert  de  Rellg.  Gen.  pag^e  199. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       143 

shall  answer  in  the  following  section,  that  is  peculiarly  designed  to 
consider  this. 

Sect.    III. 

Wherein  if  is  inquired  whether  Repentance  is  sufficient  to  atone  for 
Sin  ?  How  far  Nature^ s  Light  enables  to  it  ?  What  assurance 
Dkuture's  Light  gives  of  Pardon  upon  Repentance. 

It  now  remains  that  we  consider  the  only  exception,  which  is  of 
moment,  and  that  is,  that  repentance  is  a  sufficient  atonement,  that 
nature's  light  discovers  this,  and  so  we  are  not  left  without  relief. 
This  is  tiie  more  considerable  that  several  Christians,  yea  divines 
of  great  note,  and  some  of  them  deservedly  of  high  esteem,  have 
seen  meet,  in  compliance  with  their  several  hypotheses  in  divinity, 
to  drop  assertions  that  seem  to  favour  this.  We  shall  first  pro- 
pose their  opinions,  who  assert  this,  and  then  consider  it. 

The  Deists  go  all  this  way  as  one  man.  I  shall  offer  one  for  all, 
and  it  is  Charles  Blount,  who  not  only  speaks  the  sense,  but  trans- 
lates the  very  words  of  the  learned  lord  Herbert.  He  tells  up, 
then,  *'  That  repentance  is  the  only  known  and  public  means, 
"  which  on  our  part  is  required  for  satisfying  the  divine  justice, 
"  and  returning  to  the  right  way  of  serving  God."*  And  for 
clearing  this,  he  premises  to  it  these  ensuing  considerations, 
"  1.  That  he  that  judgeth  man  is  his  Father,  and  doth  look  on 
"  him  as  a  frail  creature,  obnoxious  to  sin.  2.  That  he  generally 
"  finds  men  sin,  rather  out  of  frailly,  than  out  of  any  desire  to 
*'  offend  his  divine  Majesty.  3.  That  if  man  had  been  made  in- 
"  wardly  prone  to  sin,  and  yet  destitute  of  all  inward  means  to 
"  return  to  him  again,  he  had  been  not  only  remediless  in  himself, 
"  but  more  miserable,  than  it  could  be  supposed  an  infinite  Good- 
"  ness  did  at  first  create,  and  doth  still  perpetuate  human  kind. — 
"  4.  That  man  can  do  no  more  on  his  part,  for  the  satisfying  of 
"  divine  justice,  than  to  be  heartily  sorry  and  repent  him  of  In's 
"  sins,  as  well  as  to  endeavor,  through  his  grace,  to  return  to  the 
"  right  way,  from  which  through  his  transgression,  he  had  erred  : 
"  or  if  this  did  not  suffice  for  the  making  of  his  peace,  that  the 
"  Supreme  God  by  inflicting  some  temporal  punishment  in  this 
"  life,  might  satisfy  his  own  justice.  5.  That  if  temporal  punlsh- 
"  ment  in  this  life,  were  loo  little  for  the  sin  committed,  he  might 
"  yet  inflict  a  greater  punishment  hereafter  in  the  other  life,  with- 
"  out  giving  eternal  damnation  to  those,  who  (if  not  for  the  love 
"  of  goodness)  yet,  at  least,  upon  sense  of  punishment,  would  not 
"  sin  eternall)^     Notwithstanding,  since  these  things  may  again  be 


licligio  Laici,  page  C8,  69,  70. 


144  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  controverted,  I  shall  insist  only  upon  that  universally  acknow- 
"  ledged  proposition  first  laid  down."*  This  proposition,  with  the 
explications,  he  translates  from  Herbert,  only  has  made  some 
small  additions. 

It  is  no  wonder  to  see  those  speak  so  ;  but  it  is  a  Httle  more  odd 
to  hear  Christians  talk  so.  One  who  would  seem  very  zealous 
for  Christianity  tells  us,  "  That  the  God  of  patience  and  conso- 
"  lation,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  would  forgive  his  frail  offspring,  if 
"  they  acknowledge  their  faults,  disapproved  the  iniquity  of  their 
"  transgressions,  begged  his  pardon,  and  resolved  in  earnest  to 
"  conform  their  actions  to  this  rule,  which  they  owned  to  be  just 
"  and  right :  this  way  of  reconcihation,  this  hope  of  atonement, 
"  the  light  of  nature  revealed  to  them.  He  that  made  use  of  this 
"  candle  of  the  Lord,  (viz.  reason)  so  far  as  to  find  his  duty,  could 
"  not  miss  to  find  also  the  way  to  reconciliation  and  forgiveness, 
'^  when  he  had  failed  of  his  duty."f  Bluch  more  speaks  he  to 
the  same  purpose. 

But  it  is  stranger  to  hear  divines  speak  so.  And  yet  we  find 
one  telling  us,  "  That  the  same  light  of  nature,  which  declares  to 
"  us  our  duty,  dictates  to  us,  when  we  have  failed  in  that  duty, 
*'  to  repent  and  turn  to  God  with  trusting  to  his  mercy  and  par- 
*'  don,  if  we  do  so  and  not  else.  We  do  find  it  legible  in  our 
'*  hearts,  that  God  is  good  and  wisely  gracious  to  pity  our  infir- 
"  relties,  to  consider  cur  lost  estate,  and  necessary  frailty,  as  that 
•'  tlicre  is  a  God,  and  any  worship  that  is  at  all  due  to  lum."J 

To  the  same  purpose  the  learned  Baxter  speaks  in  his  Reasons 
of  the  Chnatian  Religion,  Part  I.  Chap.  17.  Dr.  Whichcote  in 
his  sermon  on  Acts  xii.  38.  and  others  too  large  to  quote. 

But  now,  with  all  due  deference  to  those  great  names,  I  shall 
take  leave  to  ofTcr  the  following  remarks,  wherein  I  shall  clear 
ijiy  own  mind,  and  offer  the  reasons  on  which  I  dissent  from 
them. 

1 .  I  observe  that  the  Deists  speak  more  uncertainly  about  this 
matter  ;  whereas  these  Christian  writers  seem  more  positive.  The 
Deists  seem  not  to  want  their  fears  that  repentance  may  not  serve 
the  turn,  and  therefore  they  seem  willing  to  admit  of  temporal 
punishments,  and  even  punishments  after  time,  only  they  have 
not  %vill  to  think  of  eternal  punishments  ;  as  we  heard  from  Her- 
bert and  Blount,  who  both  speak  in  the  same  words  on  this  head. 
But  the  Christian  writers  are  positive.  And  I  am  jealous  the 
reason  is  not,  that  they  saw  farther  into  the  light  of  nature  than 
the  Deists  ;  but  that  they  lean  more  firmly  to  the  scripture  reve- 
lation, v/liich  assures  us  that  penitent  sinners  shall  be  forgive  l — 

•  Herbert  de  lielig".  Gentil.  page  199. 

f  Locke's  Reasonableness  of  Cr.ristiar.Ity,  page  255,  256. 

+  Mr.  Humphrey's  Peaceable  Disquisitions,  Chap.  14.  pasjc  57- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      145 

Though  I  must  add,  the  scripture  no  where  says  that  penitent 
sinnera  shall  be  forgiven  upon  their  penitence,  as  that  which  is  suf- 
ficient to  atone  the  justice  of  God.  And  to  speak  phiniy,  howe- 
ver confident  those  worthy  persons  are,  that  they  have  read  ihis 
doctrine  in  the  book  of  nature,  I  dare  be  bold  to  affirm  that  they 
had  either  failed  in  the  discovery,  or  stammered  a  little  more  in 
reading  their  lesson,  if  they  had  not  learned  it  before-hjind  out  of 
the  book  of  the  Scriptures  ;  though  the  thing  seems,  when  Ihcy 
have  read  it  there,  to  approve  itself  so  much  to  r^asoii,  that  rea- 
son cannot  but  assent  to  it.  It  is  well  observed  by  one  of  those 
authors,  with  whom  we  now  manage  this  debate,  "  That  when 
truths  are  once  known  to  us,  though  by  tradition,  we  are  apt  to 
be  favorable  to  our  own  parts,  and  ascribe  to  our  oun  under- 
standing the  discovery  of  what,  in  truth,  we  borrowed  from 
other?,  or  at  least,  finding  we  can  prove,  what  at  first  we  learned 
from  others,  we  are  forward  to  conclude  it  an  obvious  truth, 
which,  if  we  had  sought,  we  could  not  have  missed.  Nothing 
seems  hard  to  our  understandings,  that  is  once  known ;  and  be- 
cause what  we  see  with  our  own  eyes,  we  are  apt  to  overlook, 
or  forget  the  help  we  had  from  others,  who  first  shewed  and 
pointed  it  out  to  us,  as  if  we  were  not  at  all  beholden  to  th^m 
for  that  knowledge  ;  for  knowledge  being  only  of  Ic.iawn  tniths  ; 
we  conclude  our  faculties  would  have  led  us  into  it  witljontany 
assistance  ;  and  that  we  know  these  trutlis  by  the  Ptre  igth  and 
native  light  of  our  own  mind'?,  as  they  did,  from  whom  we  re- 
ceived them  by  theirs,  only  they  had  the  luck  to  be  b  ;fore  us. — 
Thus  the  whole  stock  of  human  knowledge  is  claimed  by  everv 
one,  as  his  private  possession,  as  soon  as  ha  (profitifig  by  other's 
discoveries)  has  got  it  into  his  own  mind  ;  and  so  it  is  ;  but  not 
properly  by  his  own  single  industry,  nor  of  his  own  acquisition. 
He  studies,  it  is  true,  and  takes  pains  to  make  a  progress  in 
what  others  have  delivered,  but  their  pains  were  of  another 
sort,  who  first  brought  those  truths  to  light,  which  he  afterwards 
derives  from  them.  He  that  travels  the  roads  now,  appkuds 
his  own  strength  and  legs,  that  have  carried  him  so  iw,  in  such 
a  scantling  of  time,  and  ascribes  all  to  his  own  vigor,  little  con- 
sidering how  much  he  owes  to  their  pains,  who  cleared  the  woods, 
drained  the  bogs,  built  the  bridges,  and  made  the  ways  passable ; 
without  which  he  might  have  toiled  much  with  litde  p'-ogiess. — 
A  great  many  things  which  we  have  been  bred  in  the  belief  of 
from  our  cradles  (and  are  notions  grown  familiar,  and  as  it  were, 
natural  tous,under  the  gospel)  we  take  for  untjuestionahie  obvious 
truths  and  easily  demoni=tiable,  without  considering;  how  long^we 
might  have  been  in  doubl,  or  in  ignorance  of  them,  had  revelation 
been  silent.  It  is  no  diminishing  to  revelation,  thut  reason  gives 
its  suffrage  too  to  the  truths  revelation  hath  discovered.     But  it  is 

19 


146  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  our  mistake  to  think  that  because  reason  confirms  them  to  U8, 
"  we  had  the  first  certain  knowledge  of  them  from  thence,  and  in 
"  that  clear  evidence  we  now  possess  them."*  How  applicable 
this  excellent  discourse  is  to  the  case  in  hand,  will  appear  from 
what  we  design  to  subjoin  on  this  head.  Though  after  all,  that 
which  the  scripture  delivers,  and  reason  confirms  in  this  case,  is 
not,  "  That  repentance  is  sufficient  to  atone  the  justice  of  God, 
"  or  that  God  will  pardon  a  penitent  sinner,  merely  on  the  account 
*'  of  his  penitence,"  which  the  Deist's  case  requires.  The  scrip' 
tures  plainly  teach  the  contrary,  and  those  learned  persons,  or  some 
of  them  at  least  who  own  them,  believe  according  to  the  scriptures, 
the  contrary,  which  makes  a  considerable  difference  betwixt  then! 
and  the  Deists  ;  though  in  this  case,  they  seem  to  speak  the  same 
things.  But  that  which  the  scripture  asserts,  is,  "  That  peni- 
"  tence  is  a  qualification  suitable  to  a  sinner  to  be  pardoned, 
'•  and  that  it  is  not  suitable  to  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  God 
"  to  pardon  one,  who  is  not  sorry  for  former  oflfences,  and  resolves 
"  to  obey  for  the  future."*  Reason  confirms  this  indeed,  but  it 
is  not  to  the  purpose. 

2.  But  to  come  a  little  more  close  to  the  purpose  ;  this  repen- 
tance, which  is  pretended  to  be  sufficient,  consists  of  two  parts, 
sorrow  for  the  offence,  ^u^  a  return  to  obedience.  This  last  part, 
a  return  to  obedience,  what  is  it  ?  Nothing,  but  only  a  perform- 
ance of  the  duties  we  were  antecedently  bound  unto  by  the  law  of 
creation,  which  only  receives  a  new  denomination  from  its  relation 
to  an  antecedent  deviation,  or  sin.  This  denomination  adds  no 
new  vrorth  to  it,  nor  does  the  relation  whereon  it  is  founded. — 
Wherefore  we  can  never  reasonably  suppose,  that  there  is  any 
great  matter  in  this,  that  can  atone  for  the  transgression.  It  is 
well  if  it  obtains  approbation  as  a  part  of  our  duty.  But  no  rea- 
sonable mo.n  can  pretend  that  it  atones  for  any  part  of  our  sin. 

8.  Tiiough  nature's  light  discovers  our  obligation  to  that  duty, 
which  now,  because  sin  preceded,  must  be  called  a  return  ;  yet  it 
is  a  question,  if  nature's  light  is  able  to  bring  a  sinner,  that  has 
once  gone  away,  to  such  a  return  as  is  necessary.  For  1.  We 
have  above  proved  that  nature's  light  is  defective  as  to  motives  to 
obedience,  as  to  the  discovery  of  particular  duties,  and  much 
more  is  it  defective  as  to  motives  to  a  return  :  because  there  is 
more  re^iuired  to  encourage  a  sinner  to  come  back,  who  has  once 
offended,  than  to  engage  him  to  continue.  There  is  a  discourage- 
ment arising  from  fear  of  punishment,  and  falling  short  of  any  re- 
ward he  might  have  expected,  upon  the  account  of  his  sin  to  be 
removed,  and  that  is  not  easily  done,  as  shall  be  shown.  2  Be- 
sides, not  only  discouragements  lie  in  the  way  of  a  return,  but 
cross  inclinations,  aversions  from  duty,  and  inclinations  to  sin. — 


*  Locke's  Reasonableness  of  Christianity,  page  27^i  280,  281. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      147 

Now  I  am  not  satisfied  that  nature's  light  can  remove,  or  direct 
how  to  remove  these  ;  of  which  we  may  speak  more  fully  in  the 
next  chapter.  So  that  as  for  this  part  of  repentance  we  neither 
see  of  what  use  it  is  as  to  atonement,  nor  do  we  find  it  clear  that 
nature's  light  can  bring  any  to  it. 

4.  The  stress  of  the  business  then  must  lean  on  this  sorrow  for 
by-gone  transgressions,  that  is  the  other  part  of  the  composition. 
But  here  I  am  sure  it  will  be  readily  granted,  that  every  sort  of 
sorrow  for  sin  will  not  serve.  If  one  is  only  grieved  for  the  loss 
he  has  sustained,  the  hazard  he  has  run  himself  into,  and  the  evil 
he  has  to  suffer,  or  fears  at  least  for  his  offence  ;  this  can  be  avail- 
able to  no  man.  Wherefore  though  nature's  light  may  bring  a 
man  to  this,  and  has  oft  done  it,  yet  this  signifies  nothing  in  the 
case. 

5.  The  sorrow,  that  only  can  be  pretended,  is  that  which  arises 
purely,  or  at  least  principally,  from  concern  for  the  dishonor  done 
to  God.  Now  as  to  this  sorrow,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not 
any  action  of  ours  done  in  obedience  to  any  command  :  but  it  is  a 
passion,  in  its  own  nature  uneasy,  as  all  sorrow  is,  though  suitable 
to  a  siimer,  and,  upon  the  supposition,  that  he  is  so,  useful  per- 
haps. And  it  results  from  the  joint  influence  of  prevailing  love 
to  God,  his  law  and  authority,  and  a  clear  conviction  of  sin's  hav- 
ing injured  his  honor,  and  our  being,  on  this  account,  obnoxious. 

6.  It  is  not  easily  to  be  granted,  that  nature's  light  can  bring 
any  man  to  this  sorrow.  Since  1.  It  is  evident  that  the  temper 
men  are  naturally  of,  is  quite  contrary  to  that  which  gives  rise  to 
such  a  sorrow.  We  are  naturally  averse  from  God,  as  shall  be 
made  appear  afterwards,  and  are  not  under  the  influence  of  any 
such  prevalent  love  to  him,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  prove  that  na- 
ture's light  is  able  to  remove  this  natural  aversion  of  the  heart 
from  God  :  but  of  this  more  in  the  next  chapter.  2.  God  can 
never  appear  amiable  to  a  sinner,  if  he  is  not  revealed  as  one 
ready  to  forgive.  We  cannot  be  sorrowful  for  our  sin,  if  we  are 
not  seriously  convinced  that  we  have  sinned,  and  see  the  demerit  of 
sin.  If  we  ?re  convinced  that  we  have  sinned,  and  deserve  punish- 
ment, we  cannot  have  prevalent  love  to  God,  which  is  requisite  to 
give  life  to  this  sorrow,  make  it  run  in  the  right  channel,  and  pro- 
ceed on  those  accounts,  which  will  make  it  acceptable  to  God,  or 
available  to  us,  unless  he  appear  to  us  as  ready  to  forgive,  which 
nature's  light  doth  not  discover. 

7.  I  doubt  if  nature's  light  calls  us  to  repentance.  I  allow  that 
there  are  several  things  obvious  to  nature's  light,  which  may  be 
said  to  drive  us  to  repentance,  because  they  serve  to  discover  to 
us  these  things  whereon  this  sorrow  follows,  bind  the  obligation  on 
us  to  that  duty,  which,  because  of  the  preteding  sin  is  called  a 
return,  and  serve  as  arguments  to  enforce  the  compliance,  provided 
we  had  a  call  or  invitation  to  return,    I  mean  a  new  call.     For 


148  AN  INaUlRY  INTO  THE 

clearing  this,  we  are  to  observe  that,  were  man  innocent,  and 
guihy  of  no  fault,  and  had  his  obedience  no  imperfection,  neces- 
sarily c^eavina;  to  it,  and  were  he  under  no  such  inconveniency  as 
might  make  him  dread  wrath,  or  fear  his  obedience  might  be  re- 
jected ;  in  that  case  a  discovery  of  the  obligation  he  lies  under  to 
duty,  were  a  call  and  invitation  sufficient  as  securing  him,  at  least 
as  to  the  acceptance  of  his  duty.  But  where  there  are  those 
things  in  his  case,  sin  and  imperfection  cleaving  to  the  duty,  and 
the  performer  chargeable  with  guilt  on  both  those  accounts,  in  or- 
der to  engage  him  to  duty,  there  is  requisite  a  new  call  or  invita- 
tion, securing  him  against  those  grounds  of  fear,  and  giving  him 
ground  to  expect  acceptance.  Now  it  is  such  a  call  as  this,  that 
only  can  bring  the  sinner  to  repentance.  And  this  we  deny  that 
nature's  light  gives  ;  though  we  own  that  it  discovers  many  things, 
that  may  be  said  in  some  sense,  to  lead  to  repentance :  Because, 
upon  supposition  of  such  an  invitation,  they  are  improveable  as  ar- 
guments to  enforce  compliance  with  duty.  Thus,  If  God  invite 
me  back  again,  his  goodness  discovered  in  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence,  invites  to  go  to  him,  and  all  the  direful  evidences 
of  his  anger  against  sinners  persuade  the  same  thing  :  and  there- 
fore may  be  said  to  lead,  or  rather  drive  to  repentance  ;  because 
they  have  a  tendency  that  way  in  their  own  nature,  and  are  capa- 
ble of  such  an  improvement  :  But  still  it  is  only  upon  the  forego- 
ing supposition. 

8.  To  make  this  matter  yet  a  little  more  clear,  I  grant  that  the 
light  of  nature  discovers  sinful  man  to  be  still  under  an  obligation 
to  obey  God.  As  long  as  God  is  God,  and  man  his  creature,  man 
is  under  a  tie  to  subjection,  and  God  has  a  right  to  man's  obedi- 
ence. This  obedience  to  which  man  is  bound,  after  once  he  has 
sinned,  must  be  called  a  return.  Further  the  light  of  nature  teach- 
es, that  if  man  had  yielded  perfect  obedience,  he  should  not  have 
done  it  in  vain.  Acceptance,  at  least,  he  should  have  had,  and 
what  other  reward  the  goodness  of  God  thought  meet.  And  that 
man  sustains  a  great  loss  by  sin,  that  intervenes  betwixt  him  and 
his  expectations  from  the  goodness  of  God,  and  besides,  exposes 
riim  to  the  hazard  of  his  just  resentment,  which,  if  it  is  seen,  as 
by  nature's  light  in  some  measure  it  may  be,  will  occasion  sorrow. 
Further,  nature's  light  will  teach  that  the  more  deeply  we  sin,  the 
more  we  have  to  fear,  and  therefore  out  of  fear  and  a  regard  to 
our  own  interest  and  expectation  of  being  freed  from  those  sever- 
er judgments,  which  a  progress  in  sin  draw  on  men,  may  be  in- 
duced to  return.  Now  all  th's  nature's  light  discovers :  but  nei- 
thrr  is  this  sor  o^,  which  savours  of  some  regard  to  ourselves,  but 
of  little  or  none  to  God  ;  nor  this  return,  which  is  not  that  cheer- 
ful, cordial  obedience  that  God  requires  and  accepts,  of  any  avail 
in  the  case.     No  man,  that  knows  what  he  says,  will  pretend,  that 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS,        I4d 

such  a  sorrow  or  such  a  return  is  suflScierit  to  atone  the  justice  of 
God  for  by-gones,  of  even  obtain  acceptance  for  itself,  which  has 
«o  much  of  love  to  self,  and  so  little  of  that  which  respects  God. 

9.  But  the  repentance  that  is  available  in  this  case  is  a  sorrow, 
flowing  from  prevalent  love  to  God,  and  grieving,  if  not  only,  yet 
principally  for  the  wrong  done  to  God,  and  a  cheerful  following  of 
duty  upon  prospect  of  God's  being  a  rewarder  of  it.  Now  to  call 
or  to  make  up  a  sufHcient  invitation  to  a  sinner,  to  such  a  repent- 
ance, it  is  requisite  that  1.  God  be  represented  in  such  a  way,  as 
a  sinner  that  sees  himself  guilty,  can  love  him,  delight  in  him,  and 
draw  near  to  him.  But  this  he  can  never  be,  if  he  is  not  repre- 
sented as  one  with  whom  certainly  there  is  forgiveness.  2.  It  re- 
quires further,  that  God  be  represented  as  one,  who  will  accept  of 
sinners'  obedience,  notwithstanding  of  their  desert  of  wrath  for 
former  disobedience,  and  this  requires  still  that  he  be  a  God  that 
forgives.  3.  Further,  it  is  requisite,  that  he  be  represented  as 
one,  that  will  accept  of  obedience,  not  only  from  one  that  has 
sinned,  but  that  implies  sin  and  imperfection  in  it.  Now  this  can- 
not be,  if  he  is  not  known  to  be  one  that  is  plenteous  in  mercy  and 
mill  abundantly  pardon.  Now  I  say  the  light  of  nature  gives  no 
such  discovery  of  God  :  and  therefore  gives  no  call  or  sufficient 
invitation  to  his  repentance. 

10.  Nor  will  it  help  out  here,  to  say,  that  the  light  of  nature 
doth  represent  God  as  placable,  one  who  may  be  pacified  :  for, 
should  I  grant  that  it  does  so,  yet  this  cannot  invite  to  such  an 
obedience,  so  long  as  1.  It  is  left  a  question,  whether  he  be  actu- 
ally reconciled,  or  positively  determined  to  forgive  ?  2.  Especially 
considering,  that  he  has  not  pointed  to,  and  positively  declared  on 
what  terras  he  will  be  appeased.  Yea  3.  Since  moreover  he  has 
given  no  visible  instance,  knowable  by  the  light  of  nature,  that  he 
has  forgiven  any  particular  persoa.  But  4.  On  the  contrary,  the 
world  is  full  of  the  most  terrible  effects  of  his  displeasure,  and 
these  falling  most  heavily  on  the  best,  even  those  who  go  farthest 
in  a  compliance  with  duty.  In  a  word,  these  dark  notions  of  a 
placable  God,  which  yet  is  the  utmost  that  unenlightened  reason 
can  pretend  to,  are  utterly  insufficient  to  bring  any  of  the  chil- 
dren of  men  to  that  repentance  we  are  now  in  quest  of;  it  is  so 
sunk,  and  as  it  were  quite  obscured  by  cross  appearances.  And 
all  that  can  reasonably  be  said,  is,  that  in  the  providence  of  God 
there  is  such  a  seeming  contrariety  of  good  and  evil,  that  men 
know  not  what  to  make  of  it,  but  are  tossed  by  contrary  appear- 
ances. And  of  this  we  h.'ve  a  fair  acknowledgment  by  one,  who, 
besides  that  he  was  a  person  of  great  learning,  was  not  only  a  great 
stickler  for  the  natural  discoveries  of  thifi  placability,  but  one  of 
the  first  broachers  of  it,  being  led  to  it  by  the  peculiar  hypothesis 
he  maintained  and  advanced  in  divinity,  I  mean  the  learned  Amy- 


150  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 


raid.  After  he  has  asserted  the  natural  discoveries  of  this  placa- 
bility, and  alleged  that  they  lead  to  repentance,  yet  subjoins  i 
"  But  there  are  (says  he)  motions  in  the  corrupt  nature  of  man  which 
*'  fi-ustrates  the  effect,  if  God  did  not  provide  for  it  in  another  man- 
*'  ner  (that  is  by  revelation.)  For  man  flies  from  the  presence  of 
*'  God  through  fear  of  punishment,  and  cannot  hinder  the  preva- 
«  lence  of  it  in  his  soul  ;  so  that  as  a  man  affrighted  beholds  nor 
*'  thing  stedfastly,  but  always  imagines  new  occasions  of  terror,  and 
"  represents  hideous  phantasms  to  himself ;  so  we  are  not  able  to 
"  allow  ourselves  leisure  to  consider  attentively  this  dispensation 
*'  of  the  goodness  of  God  towards  the  wicked,  nor  thereby  to  as- 
"  sure  ourselves  of  obtaining  mercy  and  pardon.  As  a  lewd 
"  wretch,  whose  conscience  bears  him  witness  of  many  heinoua 
*'  crimes,  though  he  should  perceive  some  connivance  in  the  ma^ 
*'  gistrate  for  a  time,  and  his  judge  shew  him  some  countenance, 
"  cannot  but  be  distrustful  of  him,  and  suspect  that  he  does  but 
"  defer  his  punishment  to  another  time,  and  assuredly  reserves  it 
"  for  him  ;  especially  if  he  hath  an  opinion  that  the  magistrate  is 
"  not  such  an  one  as  himself,  but  abhors  the  wickednesses  com- 
"  mitted  by  hira.  Now  are  wc  universally  thus  principled,  that  as 
*'  we  hate  those  whom  we  fear,  so  we  never  bear  good  will  toward 
*'  them  of  whom  we  have  some  diffidence.  And  the  distrusting 
"  the  good  w  ill  of  any  one  being  a  step  to  fear,  is  likewise  by  the 
*'  same  reason,  a  degree  of  hatred  ;  unless  the  distrust  proceed 
*'  to  such  a  measure  as  to  be  an  absolute  fear  ;  for  then  the  cold- 
*'  ncss  of  affection  is  turned  into  perfect  hatred.  Wherefore  man 
**  thus  distrusting  the  good  will  of  God  towards  him,  consequent- 
*'  ly  can  have  but  a  very  slight  affection  to  him  ;  yea,  he  will  even 
"  become  his  enemy  in  as  much  as  the  distrust  in  this  case  will 
"  be  extremely  great."*  Thus  far  he  goes.  Now  methinks  this 
quite  overthrows  the  placability  he  had  before  asserted  discovera- 
ble by  the  light  of  nature,  at  least  as  to  any  use  it  can  be  supposed 
of  for  assuring  sinners  of  pardon,  or  inviting  them  to  repentance. 
1 1 .  But  to  go  a  step  further,  I  cannot  see  that  the  light  of  na- 
ture is  able  to  give  us  any  assurance  of  this  placability.  Where 
is  it  in  the  book  of  nature  that  we  may  read  this  truth,  that  God 
is  placable  ?  Is  it  in  the  works  of  creation  ?  No,  this  is  not  pre- 
tended. Nor  can  it  be,  they  were  all  absolved  and  finished  be- 
fore the  entrance  of  sin,  and  cannot  be  supposed  to  carry  on  them 
any  impressions  of  placability  to  sinners.  Is  it  in  the  works  of 
providence.  Yes,  here  it  is  pretended.  And  what  is  it  in  the 
works  of  providence  that  is  alleged  to  evince  this  placability  ?  Is 
it  that  God  spares  sinners  for  some  time,  and  not  only  so,  but  be- 
stows many  outward  good  things  on  them,  whom  he  spares  ?    YpSj 

•  Amyrald  of  Religions,  Part  2-  Chap.  17.  page  mihi,  253, 254. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      151 

this  is  that  whereon  the  whole  stress  of  the  business  is  laid.  But 
I  cannot  see  the  force  of  this  to  assure  us  that  God  is  placable. 
For  1 .  It  is  certain  that  the  nature  of  the  things  do  not  infer  cer- 
tainly any  such  thing.  Forbearance  is  not  forgiveness  :  nor  does 
it  intimate  any  design  to  forgive.  It  may  be  exercised,  where 
there  is  a  certain  design  and  fixed  purpose  of  punishing.  And 
what  relation  have  a  few  of  those  outward  things,  whereby  love  or 
hatred  cannot  be  known,  unto  peace  and  reconciliation  with  God? 
It  is,  I  know,  pretended,  that  even  this  forbeargmce  is  a  sort  of 
forgiveness,  and  that  all  the  world  sharing  in  it,  are  in  some  sort 
forgiven.  So  Mr.  Baxter  says.  If  this  learned  person  or  any 
other  has  a  mind  to  extend  the  notion  of  pardon  so  far  as  to  include 
even  reprieves  under  that  name,  we  cannot  hinder  :  but  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  no  abatement  of  the  punishment,  far  less  the  dissolution 
of  the  obligation,  which  is  that  ordinarily  meant  by  pardon,  do  ne- 
cessarily follow  upon,  or  is  included  in  a  delay  of  punishment. 
The  slowness  in  execution,  which  may  proceed  upon  many 
grounds,  hid  in  the  depth  of  divine  wisdom  from  us,  may  be  more 
than  compensated  by  its  severity  when  it  comes.  Leaden  feet,  as 
some  have  used  the  expression,  way  be  compensated  by  iron, 
hands.  And  when  men  have  seriously  weighed  outward  good 
things,  which  are  thrown  in  greatest  plenty  in  the  lap  of  the  most 
wicked,  and  are  full  of  vanity  and  commonly  ensnare,  they  can 
see  but  very  little  of  any  mercy  designed  them  thereby.  And  if 
any  inference  toward  a  placability  is  deducible,  which  I  profess  I 
cannot  see,  I  am  sure  that  it  is  far  above  the  reach  of  not  a  few,  if 
not  most  of  mankind,  to  make  the  deduction  and  trace  the  argu- 
ment. And  so  it  can  be  of  no  use  to  them.  2.  All  those  things 
are  consistent  with  a  sentence  standing  unrepealed  and  never  to 
be  repealed,  if  either  scripture,  which  tells  us  that  God  exercises 
much  long  suffering,  and  gives  plenty  of  good  things  to  the  ves- 
sels of  wrath  ;  or  reason,  which  assures  us  that  persons  continuing 
obstinate  to  the  last  in  sin,  cannot  evite  judgment,  may  be  be- 
lieved. 3.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  things  that  can 
ascertain  us  of  God's  placability,  much  less  is  there  any  in  the 
condition  of  the  person,  to  whom  this  dispensation  is  exercised- 
Were  these  bestowed  on  the  most  virtuous,  or  were  there  an  in- 
crease of  them,  as  persons  proceeded  in  virtue,  and  came  nearer 
and  nearer  to  repentance  ;  or  were  there  on  the  other  hand  a  con- 
tinued evidence  of  wrath  and  implacability  towards  obstinate  sin^ 
ners,  this  then  would  seem  to  say  somewhat.  But  all  things  are 
quite  contrary,^^he  worst  have  the  most  of  them,  and  the  best  have 
commonly  least* of  them.  What  will  the  sinner  say,  that  God  is 
inviting  me  by  this  goodness  to  virtue  ?  No,  if  I  should  turn  vir- 
tuous I  might  rather  expect  to  be  worse  dealt  with.  That  is  a 
bootless  way  for  any  thing  I  can  sec  in  it.     Does  not  the  scrip- 


152  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

ture  and  experience  tell  us,  that  thus  things  go,  and  that  such  use 
sinners  have  made  of  this  dispensation  ?  And  so  dark  is  it,  that 
even  they  Avho  had  God's  mind  in  the  word  to  unriddle  the  mys- 
tery, have  been  shaken  at  it  so  far,  that  they  have  been  upon  the 
brink  of  apostacy,  while  they  saw  the  way  of  sinners  prosper,  and 
that  they  mho  hate  God  were  exalted.  How  then  can  unenlighten- 
ed reason  draw  such  inferences  as  these  learned  men  pretend  ? 
Although  I  have  a  great  veneration  for  these  learned  men  ;  yet  if 
it  would  not  appear  presumptuous  in  one  so  far  below  in  all  re- 
spects, to  censure  his  superiors,  I  would  take  the  liberty  to  say, 
that  in  this  matter  they  are  guilty  of  a  double  mistake  :  First,  In 
that  they  measure  men's  abilities  by  a  wrong  standard.  What 
guch  men  as  they  may  trace  by  reason,  many  men  are  under  not 
only  a  moral,  but  even  a  natural  incapacity  to  discover.  It  is  cer- 
tain, besides  that  vast  difference  which  is  in  the  capacities  of  men, 
from  different  education  and  circumstances,  whence  it  is  morally 
impossible  for  one  who  wants  that  education,  and  other  occasions 
and  advantages  which  another  has,  to  go  that  same  length  and 
trace  those  discoveries,  which  the  other  who  had  education  and  oc- 
casion may  do :  there  is  likewise  vast  difference  even  in  the  natur- 
al abilities  of  men  (whether  that  arises  from  their  bodies  or  souls  I 
dispute  not  now,  nor  is  it  to  the  purpose  ;  for  if  from  either  it  is 
still  natural)  so  that  one  has  not  a  natural  capacity  to  trace  the 
truths  that  others  may,  who  have  better  natural  abilities  :  and  so 
it  is  naturally  impossible  for  the  former  to  make  the  discoveries 
v/hich  the  other  may.  And  I  fear  not  to  add,  that  if  any  such  in- 
ferences may  be  drawn  from  these  premises,  as  those  learned  per- 
sons pretend,  yet  many  are  under  a  natural  impossibility  ;  and  the 
most  under  insuperable  moral  incapacity  of  tracing  those  disco- 
veries. And  if  it  be  allowed  that  any  man,  without  his  own  fault, 
is  under  an  incapacity  of  making  such  deductions,  about  the  pla- 
cability of  God,  from  these  dispensations  of  providence,  which  I 
think  cannot  modestly  be  denied,  the  v/hole  plea  about  placabili- 
ty will  prove  not  only  unserviceable  to  the  Deists,  but,  if  I  mistake 
it  not,  unmeet  to  maintain  that  station  for  which  it  is  designed,  in 
the  hypothesis  of  the  learned  aaserters  of  this  opinion.  Another 
mistake  I  think  those  persons  guilty  of.  Is,  that  men  whose  minds 
are  not  enlightened  by  revelation,  may  possibly  trace  those  disco- 
veries, which  they  who  are  guided  by  it  may  read  in  the  book  of 
nature.  4.  I  add,  if  these  things  whereon  they  insist,  as  disco- 
veries of  thi;?  placability  in  God,  serve  to  raise  any  suspicions  of 
that  sort  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  this  is  the  most  that  can  be 
reasonably  pretended,  for  demonstration  they  do  not  amount  unto, 
they  are  quite  sunk  by  the  contrary  evidences  of  God's  severity ; 
which  must  have  so  much  of  force,  in  as  much  as  they  most  com- 
monly befall  the  most  virtuous,  which   heightens  the  suspicion. 


PlllNCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      lo3 

And  besides,  as  we  heard  Amyrald  observe,  the  minds  of  sinners, 
vvho  are  convinced  in  any  measure  of  sin,  who  are  yet  the  only 
pei-sons  that  will  think  themselves  concerned  in  this  matter,  are 
much  more  inclined  to  entertain  suspicions  thah  i^ood  thoughts  of 
him,  whom  they  have  offended,  and  who,  as  their  consciences  as- 
sure them,  hates  their  offences.  H.  That  which  puts  the  cope- 
stone  upon  our  misery,  and  concludes  us  under  darkness,  is  that 
nature's  licht  has  no  help  to  guide  us  over  the  difficulties  laid  ia 
our  way,  fiom  any  known  instances  of  any  persons  led  to  repent- 
ance by  these  means,  or  pardoned  on  their  repentance.  So  that 
upon  the  whole,  I  cannot  see  sufficient  evidence  of  this  placabili- 
ty in  tlie  light  of  natme. 

12.  If  it  is  alledged  here,  that  if  God  had  no  design  of  mercy 
in  sparing  the  worltl,  it  is  perfectly  unintelligible  why  he  did  it. 
In  answer  to  this,  it  is  to  be*  observed,  that  we  did  not  say 
that  God  had  no  design  of  mercy  in  sparing  the  world,  but  that 
this  liis  forbearance  of  the  world  is  not  a  sufficient  proof  and  evi- 
dence of  this  design  ;  and  that  nature's  light  can  give  no  satisfy- 
ing account  of  the  reason  of  this  dispensation  of  God.  So  dark 
was  this  to  sucli  as  had  no  other  light  but  that  of  reason,  that  the 
most  part  laid  aside  thoughts  of  it  as  a  thing  above  their  reach  ; 
and  the  more  thoughtful  knew  not  what  judgment  to  make,  but 
were  confounded  and  perplexed  in  their  thoughts.  They  under- 
stood not  M'hat  account  was  to  be  made  of  God's  producing  so 
many  successive  generations  of  men,  and  tossing  them  betwixt 
love  and  hatred,  hope  and  fear,  by  such  a  strange  mixture  of  good 
and  evil — effects  of  his  bounty  and  evidences  of  his  anger.  Yea 
so  far  were  they  confounded,  that  some  of  them  came  the  length 
to  set  God  aside  from  the  government  of  the  world.  No  less  a 
person  than  Seneca  introduces  God,  telling  good  men,  "  That  he 
could  not  help  their  calamities."  And  Pliny  accuses  God,  under 
the  notion  of  nature,  of  no  good  design,  "  Naturam,  quasi  mag- 
'■•  na  ^  sava  mercede  contra  fanta  stia  mvncra  usum  ;  ita  lit  non 
'*  satis  sit  a;stimare,  parens  melior  homini,  an  fristior  noverca 
'*  flier  it ;"  id  est,  Nature  has  so  cruelly  counterbalanced  its  largest 
"  gifts  with  horrible  evils,  that  it  is  hard  to  say,  whether  it  is  not 
"  a  sad  or  cruel  step-mother  rather  than  a  kind  parent  to  man." 
So  that  in  fact,  men  were  thus  spared  and  left  in  this  dark  condi- 
tion, as  to  the  reasons  of  God's  dispensations,  is  evident  from  ex- 
perience. The  reasons  of  this  conduct  are  to  be  sought  in  the 
<lepth  of  tlie  wisdom  and  sovereign  justice  of  God.  Chri-itiaus 
u  ho  are  sound  in  the  faith,  w  ill  own,  that  all  who  belonged  to  the 
election  of  grace  could  not  have  come  into  being,  if  the  world  had 
not  been  thus  spared.  They  will  own  that  the  world  could  not 
Iiave  been  preserved  in  any  order,  without  these  effects  both  of 
bounty  and  sc\"ctity,  whereby  some  restraint  was  put  on  th.e  lusts 

•20 


154  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

of  men,  and  some  government  kept  up  among  them,  and  they 
were  kept  from  running  to  such  a  height  in  sin,  as  would  have 
made  it  impossible  for  God,  with  any  consistency  to  his  justice, 
holiness  or  wisdom  to  have  preserved  the  world,  till  his  design  in 
its  preservation  was  reached.  And  it  may  be  said  further,  for  the 
satisfaction  of  Christians  (for  the  deists  have  no  concern  in  this  ac- 
count, which  is  bottomed  on  the  revelation  they  deny)  that  if 
God  had  seen  meet  to  make  all  that  belonged  to  Adani's  covenant 
at  once,  they  could  not  have  refused  to  consent  to  the  placing 
their  happiness  on  that  bottom  whereon  he  placed  it  in  the  trans- 
action with  Adam,  and  could  not  have  condemned  God  for  execu- 
ting the  sentence  upon  all  immediately  upon  the  breach  of  it. 
And  therefore  I  think  they  have  no  reason  to  quarrel  at  God's  keep- 
ing them  out  of  hell  for  a  while.  Further,  God  in  his  wisdom,  by 
leaving  so  many  in  this  dark  case  for  so  many  ages,  has  let  them 
see  the  shortness  of  their  wisdom  to  disentangle  them  from  that 
misery,  whereunto  by  sin  they  were  involved.  It  was  in  the  wis- 
dom of  God,  that  the  jvorld  by  wisdom  knew  not  God.  Finally, 
this  should  make  us  welcome  the  gospel,  which  only  can  dispel  the 
darkness  we  are  under,  as  to  the  whole  state  of  matters  betwixt 
God  and  us,  and  lead  us  to  life  and  immortality,  and  mercy,  par- 
doning mercy,  which  the  dim  light  of  nature  could  never  discover 
to  us. 

Now  if  we  consider  what  has  been  above  discoursed,  it  will  be 
found  that  we  have  made  considerable  advances  towards  a  decision 
of  that  which  is  in  debate. 

We  have  cleared  what  that  repentence  is,  which  with  any 
§]].'=""/  of  reason  can  be  pretended  available  in  the  present  case. 

Wo  have  evinced  that  the  placability  of  God,  of  which  some 
talk,  were  it  discoverable  by  nature's  light,  is  not  sufBcient  to  bring 
men  to  this  repentance. 

Further,  we  have  made  it  appear,  that  the  evidences  of  this 
placability  brought  from  nature's  light  are  not  conclusive. 

But  were  ali  this  given  up,  which  we  see  no  cause  to  do,  the 
principal  point  is  still  behind,  viz.  "  Whether  nature's  light  can 
"  ascertain  us  that  all  penitent  sinners  shall  be  pardoned  upou 
"  their  repentance."  This  the  deists  maintain,  and  we  deny. 
Their  assertion,  "  that  the  light  of  nature  assures  us  that  penitenife 
"  sinners  upon  their  repentance  shall  assuredly  be  forgiven,"  is 
that  which  we  shall  next  take  under  consideration,  and  demon- 
strate to  be  groundlcs,  false  and  o.bsurd,  by  the  ensuing  arguments. 

1 .  I  reason  against  it  from  the  nature  of  pardon.  Forgiveness 
or  prirdon  is  a  free  act  of  God's  will.  It  is  a  freeing  of  the  sin- 
ner from  the  obligation  he  lies  under  to  punishment,  by  virtue  of 
the  penal  sanction  of  that  righteous  and  just  law  which  he  has 
violated.      Ail  divine   laws   are  unquestionably  equal,  just  and 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       155 

righteous,  and  their  penal  sanctiona  are  so  too.  Certainly  there- 
fore God  may  justly  inflict  the  punishment  contained  in  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  law  upon  the  transgressors  ;  and  consequently,  we 
may  without  fear  infer,  that  to  relieve  him  from  that  penalty  is  a 
most  free  act,  to  which  God  was  not  necessarily  oblicjed.  And  in- 
deed, though  all  this  had  not  been  said,  the  thing  is  in  itself  clear  ; 
for  we  can  frame  no  other  notion  of  forgiveness  than  this,  "  Th^t 
it  is  a  voluntary  and  free  act  of  grace,  which  remits  the  punish- 
ment, and  looses  the  sinner  from  that  punishment  he  justly  de- 
served, and  which  the  lawgiver  might  justly  have  inflicted  on 
him."  Now  this  being  clear,  we  infer,  that  such  acts  cannot  be 
known  othenvise  than,  either  by  revelation,  that  is  God's  declar- 
ing himself  expressly  to  this  purpose,  or  by  the  deed  itself,  some 
positive  act  of  forgiveness,  which  is  the  effect  of  such  a  purpose. 
'I'he  deists  disown  and  deny  any  revelation.  And  for  any  effect 
declarative  of  such  a  purpose,  we  shall  challenge  the  world  to  pro- 
duce it.  There  never  was,  nor  is  any  one  person,  of  whom  we 
can  certainly  affirm,  upon  the  information  of  nature's  light,  that 
God  has  forgiven  him,  either  upon  repentance  or  without.  And 
if  there  were  such  persons,  it  would  not  bear  the  weight  of  a 
general  conclusion,  that  because  God  has  done  it  to  them,  there- 
fore he  will  do  it  to  all,  in  all  other  instances. 

2.  I  reason  against  this  supposed  constitution  from  the  extent 
of  it,  that  God  will  pardon  all  penitent  sinners.  If  this  is  not  said, 
he  pardons  none  upon  their  penitence  :  for  if  any  penitent  sinner 
can  be  supposed  to  remain  unpardoned,  why  may  not  all  ?  Besides, 
if  a  penitent  sinner  is  punished,  then  it  must  be  upon  somewhat 
else  than  penitence,  that  he  who  is  pardoned  obtains  remission. 
For  if  mere  penitence  had  been  sufficient,  a  penitent  could  not 
have  suffered.  Now  if  all  penitent  sinners  are  forgiven,  and  na- 
ture's light  assures  them  that  they  shall  be  forgiven,  then  the  ex- 
tent of  this  constitution  is  very  large.  For,  1 .  It  makes  void  the 
penal  sanction  of  the  law  as  to  all  sins,  however  atrocious  they 
are,  if  the  sinner  is  only  a  penitent.  2.  It  extends  to  all  ages, 
places,  and  generations  of  men,  that  ever  have  been,  or  shall  be  in 
the  world.  3.  It  reaches  to  all  sorts  of  persons,  even  those  who 
are  in  a  capacity  to  introduce  the  greatest  disorders  in  the  go- 
vernment of  the  world,  as  well  as  in  the  meanest  offenders.  Well 
then,  the  deists  must  maintain  that  it  is  thus  enacted,  and  this 
act  or  constitution  is  in  all  this  extent  publicly  declared  by  the 
light  of  nature,  so  that  all  may  know  it.  4.  It  reaches  to  all  sins, 
past,  present,  and  to  come  ;  they  shall  all  be  forgiven,  if  the 
sinner  does  only  repent.  Now  against  such  an  extensive  consti- 
tution, we  offer  the  following  considerations  : 

(1.)  All  wise  governors,  who  have  any  regard  to  the  honor  of 
<heir  laws,  authority,  and  governments,  use  to  be  very  sparing  in 


156  AN  INUUIRY  INTO  THE 

indemnifying  trans«^rcssion.  And  no  wonder  they  should  ;  for 
wise  and  just  rulers  are  not  wont  to  enact  penalties,  but  in  pro- 
portion to  offences.  And  therefore  a  passing  easily  from  them  tends 
to  make  transgression  cheap,  and  to  weaken  the  constitution,  and 
so  dissolve  the  government.  Now  God  is  no  less  tender  of  the 
honour  of  those  laws,  which  enact  nothing  but  what  is  the  tran- 
script of  his  own  righteous  nature,  and  the  opposite  whereof  he 
has  the  deepest  abhorrency  of,  as  contrary  to  the  same.  And 
can  we  then  reasonably  suppose  him  to  be  so  lavish  of  forgiveness 
as  to  establish  it  in  so  strange  an  extent  ?  I  believe  it  will  be  hard 
for  any  thinking  man  to  judge  so. 

(2.)  In  all  well  ordered  governments  pardon  is  a  particular  act 
of  grace,  restricted  to  some  time,  place  and  person  ;  yea  a>;d 
crimes  to  :  and  therefore  is  never  extended  so  universally  as  here 
it  is,  and  if  it  is  to  the  purpose,  must  be  asserted.  So  ihat  the 
common  reason  of  mankind  declares  against  r>uch  a  constitution  ; 
for  what  is  or  may  be  pi-etcnded  of  in^penitent  sinners  being  ex- 
cluded, is  in  very  deed,  no  restriction  of  the  law  indemnifying 
transgressors  of  v.'hatever  sort,  that  are  but  willing  to  be  indemni- 
fied. For  impenitent  sinners  are  they  only  who  have  no  will  to 
be  pardoned,  or  who  will  not  accept  of  favor.  Now  to  indemnify 
all  that  are  willing  to  be  pardoned  is  very  odd  constitution.  And 
before  I  ascribe  this  to  the  wisdom  of  the  great  Ruler  of  the  world, 
I  must  see  better  reasons  than  I  am  ever  likely  to  see  in  this  case. 

(3.)  No  wise  government  ever  enacted  pardon  of  such  an  uni^ 
versal  extent,  without  further  security  for  the  honor  of  the  go-r 
vernment,  into  a  perpetual  and  standing  law.  Pardon  and  acts  of 
grace  are  a  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  governor  :  and  however 
he  may  make  them  very  extensive  sometimes  ;  yet  he  always  re- 
serves it  so  in  his  own  power,  that  it  shall  afterwards  be  voluntary 
and  free  to  liim  to  forgive  or  not  as  he  shall  see  cause. 

(4.)  Such  a  constitution  is  especially  irreconcileable  with  wis- 
dom and  equity,  if  it  h  extended  to  transgressions  not  yet  com- 
mitted ;  for  in  that  case  it  looks  like  an  hivitatlon  to  sin. 

(5.)  And  tills  binds  more  stiongly,  if  the  persons  arc  strongly 
inclined  to  sin. 

(fi.)  IMore  especially  such  a  constitution  Is  never  to  be  reconciled 
with  wisdom,  if  it  is  universally  made  known  and  published  with- 
out any  provision  made  for  the  securing  of  the  honor  of  the  law, 
against  any  abuse  of  such  grace.  Now  I  desire  1o  know  if  na- 
ture's light  discovers  such  an  act  and  declaration  of  grace.  Where 
is  there  any  care  talren,  or  any  provisos  Inserted  in  the  declara- 
tion that  can  evidence  the  regard  which  God  has  for  his  laws,  and 
r^curc  againrt  the  abnse  of  such  kindness  1  Indeed  the  scripture 
discovery  cf  mercy  to  penitent  sinners,  on  account  of  Christ's 
eatisf^cliv)-.-,  fauv  removes  all  those  difficulties  v.hicli  otherwise. 


\ 

PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      157 

so  far  as  I  can  see,  are  never  to  be  removed  :  And  tlierefore  I 
can  never  see  how  such  a  declaration  could  be  made  without  the 
concomitant  discovery  of  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  and  reparation 
of  the  honor  of  the  law-giver  and  law,  and  security  against  abuse 
of  grace.  Remarkable  to  this  purpose  are  the  words  of  the  learn- 
ed and  judicious  Dr.  How :  "  That  prince  would  certainly  never 
"  be  so  mxich  magnified  for  his  clemency  and  mercy,  as  he  would 
"  be  despised  by  all  the  world,  for  most  remarkable  defects  of 
"  government,  that  should  not  only  pardon  whosoever  of  his  sub- 
"  jects  had  offended  him,  upon  their  being  sorry  for  it ;  but  go 
"  ai)out  to  provide,  that  a  law  should  obtain  in  his  dominions,  thro' 
"  all  after  time,  that  whosoever  should  offend  against  the  govern- 
"  ment,  with  whatsoever  insolency,  malignity  and  frequency,  if 
"  they  repented  they  should  never  be  punished,  but  be  taken 
"  forthwith  into  highest  favor.  Admit  that  it  had  been  congruous 
"  to  the  wisdom  and  righteousness  of  God,  as  well  as  his  goodness, 
"  to  have  pardoned  a  particular  sinner,  upon  repentance,  without 
"  satisfaction  ;  yet  nothing  could  have  been  more  apparently  un- 
"  becoming  him,  than  to  settle  an  imiversal  law  for  all  future  lime, 
"  to  that  purpose,  that  let  as  many  as  would,  in  any  age  to  the 
"  world's  end,  affront  him  never  so  highly,  invade  his  rights,  tram- 
"  pie  on  his  authority,  and  tear  the  constitution  of  liis  govern- 
*'  ment,  they  should,  upon  their  repentance,  be  forgiven,  and  not 
"  only  not  be  punished,  but  be  most  highly  advanced,  and  dignifi- 
"  ed."  Thus  for  he.  In  the  subsequent  paragraph  he  learnedly 
and  judiciously  shews  the  difference  in  the  gospel  proposal  of  mer- 
cy to  offenders,  from  this  supposed  case  of  forgiveness  without 
satisfaction. 

8.  I  inquire,  whether  is  it  possible  that  there  may  be  any  crime 
so  atrocious,  that  it  may  be  possible  for  God,  in  a  congruity  with 
his  perfection,  to  punish,  notwithstanding  of  the  intervention  of 
repentance  ?  If  there  may  be  any  such,  then  certainly  it  is  not 
merely  on  account  of  repentance  that  sin  is  pardoned  ;  and  so  a 
penitent  cannot  always  be  sure  of  forgiveness.  Further,  consi- 
dering how  grievous  and  sinful  every  transgression  of  God's  law  is, 
how  can  I  be  sure  what  sins  are  pardonable  upon  repentance  and 
what  not  ?  If  it  is  not  possible  for  God  to  punish  any  penitent,  then 
1.  I  would  inquire  what  so  great  matter  is  there  in  repentance, 
that  can  bind  God  up  from  vindicating  his  honor  against  affronts 
already  offered  ?  2.  To  what  purpose  was  the  penal  sanction  since, 
in  the  case  it  was  designed  ?  For  when  the  law  is  transgressed,  it 
may  not  possibly  take  place  but  the  execution  is  inconsistent  with 
the  nature  of  God.  3.  How  will  this  impossibility  ever  be  proven  ? 
Repentance  hath  nothing  in  it  so  great  to  infer  it :  for  in  repent- 
ance no  more  can  be  alledged  but  a  return  to  duty  antecedently 
due.     And  as  to  thi'^^,  we  are  unprofitable  servants.      And  Christ 


158  AN  INQUIR^  INTO  THE 

has  told  us  what  reason  tells  us  also,  that  we  deserve  no  thanks  for 
it.  And  as  for  the  other  pari,  sorrow  for  by-gones,  it  is  the  ne- 
cessary  result  of  that  regard  to  the  Deit  j,  and  knowledge  of  our 
own  sin,  that  is  likewise  our  own  duty.  Now  what  is  there,  in  all 
this,  that  should  be  supposed  to  be  of  so  great  worth,  that  it  must 
inevitably  stop  the  course  of  justice  ? 

But  here  it  may  be  objected,  not  only  by  Deists,  but  some,  who 
are  veiy  far  from  favoring  them,  "  That  God  cannot  cast  away 
*'  from  his  love  and  felicity  any  soul,  which  truly  loveth  him, 
"  above  all,  and  v*'hich  so  repenteth  of  his  sin,  as  to  return  to 
"  God  in  holiness  in  heart  and  life."* 

I  answer,  1 .  The  supposition  that  a  sinner  convinced  of  sin  can 
repent  without  some  security  given  as  to  pardon,  can  love  God 
above  all,  and  so  repent,  as  te  turn  to  holiness  in  heart  and  life,  ap- 
pears to  me  impossible.  Much  less  is  it  possible  that  an  uncon- 
vinced sinner  can  repent.  The  reason  is  plain,  a  clear  conviction 
of  sin  inevitably  lays  us  under  the  deepest  fear  of  God,  and  dread 
of  punishment  from  him,  which  not  only  casts  out  that  love,  but 
draws  on  hatred,  or  at  least,  strong  aversion  ;  as  we  heard  the 
learned  Amyrald  well  observe  in  the  words  before  quoted.  Now 
it  is  certain,  that  suppose  one  impossibility,  twenty  will  follow.— 

2,  If  the  thing  is  not  impossible,  Avhich  I  think  it  is,  yet  certainly 
it  is  a  case  that  never  happened,   and  is  never  likely  to  happen. — 

3.  Supposing  it  possible,  it  is  a  very  bold  assertion,  that  no  crime, 
how  atrocious  soever,  would  justify  the  inflicting  of  the  penalty 
contained  in  the  righteous  sanction  of  the  laAV.  4.  Much  less 
then  is  it  hard  to  suppose  that  it  would  justify  God's  denying  any 
reward  to  the  sinner,  that  he  has  so  sinned.  And  if  it  is  granted 
that  penitence  does  not  necessarily  restore  to  a  prospect  of  re^rard, 
all  religion  and  encouragement  to  it  is  lost.  I  cannot  forbear  quot- 
ing again  the  accurate  and  judicious  Dr.  How's  words,  who  after 
he  has  shown  that  our  offences  against  God  incomparably  transcend 
the  measure  cf  any  offence  that  can  be  done  by  one  creature  against 
another,  presently  subjoins,  "  Yea,  and  as  it  can  never  be 
"  thought  congruous,  that  such  an  offence  against  a  human  govern- 
"  or,  should  be  pardoned,  without  the  intervening  repentance  of 
"  the  delinquent ;  so  we  may  easily  apprehend  also  the  case  to  be 
"  such,  as  that  it  cannot  be  fit,  it  should  be  pardoned  on  that 
"  alone,  without  other  recompence  :"t  whereof  if  any  should 
doubt,  I  would  demand,  is  it,  in  any  case,  fit,  that  a  penitent  de- 
linquent against  human  laws  and  government  should  be  punished, 
or  a  proportionable  recompence  be  exacted  for  his  offence  not- 
withstanding ?  Surely  it  will  be  acknowledged  ordinarily  fit ;  and 


•  Baxter's  Eeasons  of  Christ.  Relig-.  Part  1.  pajje  184,  188. 
f  Living  Temple,  Fart  2.  pag-e  210. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       159 

who  would  take  upon  him  to  be  the  censor  of  the  common  justice 
of  the  world  in  all  such  cases  !  Or  to  condemn  the  proceedinc;s  of 
aJI  times  and  nations,  wheresoever  a  penitent  offender  huth  been 
made  to  suffer  the  legal  punishment  of  his  offence,  notvyjthstant!- 
ing  his  repentance  ?  How  strange  a  maxim  of  government  would 
that  be,  that  it  is  never  fit  that  an  offender,  of  whatsoever  kind, 
sliould  be  punished,  if  he  repent  himself  of  his  offence !  And  sure- 
ly, if  ever,  in  any  case,  somewhat  else  than  repentance  be  fitly 
insisted  on  as  a  recompence,  for  the  violation  of  the  sacred  riglits 
of  government,  it  may  well  be  supposed  much  more  so  in  the  case 
of  man's  common  delinquency  and  revolt  from  God. 

4.  I  reason  against  this  position,  from  the  consideration  of  the 
imperfection  of  this  repentance,  which,  as  it  takes  place  amongst 
sinful  men,  is  guilty  of  a  double  imperfection.  Our  sorrow  and 
our  return  are  imperfect,  in  respect  of  degrees.  Our  relation  to 
God  and  his  to  us  requires  the  highest,  the  most  perfect  love  and 
the  most  cordial  obedience.  No  less  will  answer  our  obligations. 
And  our  sorrow,  if  it  is  required,  must  be  supposed  likewise  to  be 
such  as  results  necessarily  from  such  a  love.  Now  what  can  be 
more  evident  than  this,  that  none  of  the  children  of  men  love  God 
as  they  ought,  and  with  that  intention  and  veheraency,  which  an- 
swers their  original  obligation  ?  Aru\  consequently  their  sorrov/ 
and  obedience  can  never  come  up  to  it :  for  they  being  the  result 
of  this  love,  can  never  go  beyond  the  principle,  which  influences 
them.  Again,  our  return  is  liable  to  another  imperfection,  even 
a  frequent  interruption.  The  case  is  not  thus,  that  we  only  once, 
through  infirmity,  make  an  escape  ;  but  even  after  our  supoosed 
return,  it  must  be  allowed  that  there  will  be  after-deviations.  And 
hence  it  becomes  a  question,  how  can  we  expect  acceptance  ia 
our  returns  ?  How  can  our  repentance,  which  answers  not  the  de- 
mands of  the  law,  and  our  ties  to  duty  be  accepted  for  itself  ? 
And  if  so,  much  more  may  it  be  a  question,  how  can  it  be  allowed 
sufficient  to  atone  for  other  transgressions,  yea,  how  can  it  be  suf- 
ficient to  atone  for  transgressions,  which  it  takes  no  notice  of?  For 
there  are  such  sins  as  by  the  light  of  nature  we  are  never  likely 
to  reach  the  conviction  of  ;  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  we 
should  sorrow  for  them,  or  repent  of  them  ?  However  men  may 
please  themselves  with  a  fancy  of  the  sulBciency  of  their  repent- 
ance ;  yet  a  sinner,  that  understands  his  own  case,  will  never  be 
able  to  satisfy  his  own  conscience  in  this  matter. 

I  know  it  is  pleaded,  *'  That  we  have  a  harder  province  to  admin- 
"  ister  than  even  the  angels  themselves  ;  they  not  huving  so  gross 
"  a  body  as  we  have,  nor  exposed  to  so  much  evil  as  we  are.  But 
"  God  knoweth  our  frame,  and  upon  that  account  is  not  ex- 
"  treme  to  mark  what  is  done  amiss.  A  creature,  as  a  creature,  is 
'•'  finite  and  fallible  :  and  yet  we  arc  not  the  most  perfect  of  God's 


160  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  creation.  No^',  for  fallible  to  fail,  is  no  more  than  for  frail  lobe 
"  broken ;  and  mortal  to  die.  Where  there  is  finite  and  limited 
"  perfect  ion  there  is  not  only  a  possibility,  but  a  contingency  to 
"  fail,  to  err,  to  be  mistaken,  not  to  know  and  to  be  deceived. 
"  And  where  the  agent  is  such,  there  is  place  for  repentance. — 
"  Repentance  is  that  which  makes  a  finite  being  failing,  capable  of 
"  compassion.  If  repentance  did  not  take  effect,  it  would  be  too 
"  hazardous  for  a  creature  to  come  into  being.  If  upon  a  lapse, 
"  an  error,  or  mistake,  we  should  be  undone  to  eternity,  without 
"  all  hope  of  recovery  ;  who  would  willingly  enter  upon  this  state  ?"* 
Thus  speaks  Dr.  Whichcote. 

To  this  plausible  discourse  we  answer.  Either  this  reasoning  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  state  of  things,  according  to  the  covenant  of  grace, 
and  respects  them  who  have  laid  hold  on  it,  or  it  does  not.  If 
it  does  proceed  on  this  footing,  w^e  say  it  helps  not  the  Deists  : 
but  if,  as  it  seemf7,  it  be  extended  further,  then  I  shall  make  the 
following  remarks  on  it.  1 .  Although  we  have  here  many  things 
prettily  said,  yet  I  cannot  but  deeply  dislike  the  discourse,  because 
it  aims  at  the  extenuation  of  sin,  and  pleads  its  excuse  from  our 
frailty.  Now,  besides  that  this  bears  hard  upon  the  author  of  our 
constitution,  as  if  he  had  made  it  unequal  to  the  laws  he  imposed 
on  it,  it  is  a  foolish  argument,  because  the  case  may  be  as  much 
exaggerated  on  the  other  hand  by  the  representing  the  greatness 
of  the  law-giver,  the  equality  of  the  laws,  and  the  ability  of  man, 
at  least  in  his  first  make  to  obey.  And  the  one  will  not  signifj' 
more  to  give  us  hope  of  forgiveness  on  our  repentance,  than  the 
other  will  to  make  us  despair  of  it.  2.  It  seems  to  reflect  on  God's 
different  conduct  with  the  angels  that  sinned,  who  had  no  place  al- 
lowed them  for  repentance  :  for  their  frame  was  finite,  and  so,  frail 
and  failablc.  The  little  difference  from  the  grossness  of  our  bodies, 
if  man  is  not  supposed  corrupt,  and  his  body  inclined  to  evil,  makes 
no  difference  that  can  satisfy ;  for  still  we  were  under  no  necessity 
of  sinning  from  our  constitution,  if  it  is  not  supposed  to  be  corrupt. 
But  to  pretend  that  man  was  made  corrupt,  carries  our  frailty  too 
fir,  to  make  it  God's  deed.  We  cannot  plead  in  excuse,  any  defects 
in  our  constitution,  that  God  put  not  there.  3.  It  condemns  all 
human  laws  that  spares  not  penitent  transgressors.  If  it  be  said, 
that  they  are  under  a  necessity  to  do  it  ;  I  answer,  whence  does 
this  necessity  arise  ?  Is  the  honor  of  the  divine  law  less  dear  to 
him,  and  of  less  consideration  than  the  honor  and  rights  of  human 
constitutions  and  governments  ?  But  further,  I  desire  to  know,  will 
necessity  justify  the  punishment  of  the  penitent  ?  If  not,  then  here 
it  doth  not  justify  :  if  it  doth,  who  will  assure  me  that  there  is  not 

*  Dr.  Whiclicote's  select  Sermons,  Part  2.  Sermon  2nd,  on  Acts  xiii.  3?- 
pag-e  322.  323. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      161 

as  great  a  necessity  for  this  course  in  divine  as  human  govern- 
ments ;    at  least  in  some  instances  ?    And  if  in  any  instance  the 
punishment  of  a  penitent  may  take  place,  who  will  condescend  to  tell 
where  it  may,  and  where  not  ?  How  likewise  can  it  be  said  that 
penitence  secures  pardon  ?  Further,  4.  I  say  directly  to  the  argu- 
ment, if  divine  laws  are  as  much  adjusted  to  man's   power,  as  the 
constitutiong  and  laws  of  human  governments  are,  (and  that  they 
behoved  to  be  so,  with  respect  to  his  power  in  his  first  constitution 
has  been  made  appear)  then  it  is  no  more  hazardous  to  come  into 
being,  than  to  enter  into  human  society,  where  frail  man  may,  for  a 
word  or  a  deed,  forfeit  his  own  life  to  justice  and  all  the    advan- 
tages of  it,  and  beggar  hia  posterity,  and  that  without  any  prospect 
of  relief  by  his  repentance.     If  it  be  said,  that  the  punishments 
are  greater  in  this  case  ;  I  grant  it  :  so  are  the  laws  too,  and  con- 
sequently the   transgressions  ;  and  so  likewise  are  the  advantages 
of  obedience  ;  and  without  an  injurious  reflection  on  God,  it  can- 
not be  ~^!enied  that  the  laws  are,  as  well  at  least,  attempered  to 
man's  abilities  wherewith  he   was  created  and  subjected  to  them. 
5.  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  injustice  to  inflict  a  just  punishment, 
upon  transgressors,  and  such  of  necessity,  that  is,  which  is  includ- 
ed in  the  sanction  of  the  divine  laws.     Nor  does  repentance  make 
that  execution  unjust  ;  which,  without  it,  is  allowed  not  only  just, 
but  indispensably  necessary.      This   I  might  largely  shew,  but 
others  have  done  it  before.* 

5.  The  falsehood  of  this  proposition  may  be  further  evidenced 
from  the  nature  of  the  justice  of  God,  that  seems  necessarily  to 
require  that  sin  be  punished.  For  clearing  this,  I  shall  make  the 
ensuing  observations  :  in  doing  which  we  shall  aim  at  such  a  Gra- 
dual progression  as  may  set  the  matter  in  the  best  light. 

(1.)  Justice  strictly  taken,  is  "  that  virtue  of  the  rational  na- 
ture, whose  business  it  is  to  preserve,  maintain,  and  be  a  guardian 
of  the  rights  of  rational  beings."  It  is  commonly  defined,  a  "  con- 
stant and  abiding  or  fixed  will  of  giving  to  every  one  what  is  their 
light  or  due."  Whence  it  has  been  debated,  whether  in  man 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  self-justice  ;  because,  according  to  this 
account  of  justice,  it  seems  to  be  restricted  to  the  rights  of  others. 
And  this  restriction  has  countenance  given  to  it  from  that  common 
maxim,  that  volenti  nonjit  injuria,f  which  is  founded  In  this,  that 
a  man  is  supposed  capable  of  parting,  without  wrong,  with  his  own 
lights,  and  consequently  is  not  capable  of  injustice  towards  him- 
self. It  is  true,  man  has  no  rights,  which  he  may  not  deprive 
})imself  of  by  his  own  consent.  Yet  since  man  has  such  rights, 
though  they  are  but  derived  onies,  aa  also  his  being  is,  as  he  cannot 

*  See  Specimen  Refutatlonis  Crellii,  pagfe  100,  101,  8l-s«qu. 
7  "  Xo  injury  is  done  Vo  one  who  is  willing  " 

21 


162  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

deprive  himself  of  without  fault,  I  see  not  but  even  such  a  thing 
as  self-justice  may  take  place  among  men  :  but  whatever  the  case 
be  as  to  men,  there  is  certainly  in  God  to  be  allowed  such  a  thing 
as  self-justice.     For  clearing  of  which  I  observe, 

(2.)  That  God,  being  the  fountain  of  all  rights,  has  certainly 
rights,  which  he  can  by  no  means  deprive  himself  of.  He  has  a 
Tight  of  dominion  over  the  creature,  and  to  the  creature's  subjec- 
tion, that  he  cannot  part  with.  As  long  as  there  is  a  rational  crea- 
ture it  is,  by  its  being,  inevitably  subject  to  its  Creator,  and  he 
cannot  part  with  that  right  he  has  to  govern  it.  "  With  the  su- 
"  preme  Proprietor,  there  cannot  but  be  unalienable  rights,  inse- 
"  parably  and  everlastingly  inherent  in  him :  for  it  cannot  be,  but 
"  that  he,  who  is  the  fountain  of  all  rights  must  have  them  pri- 
"  marily  and  originally  in  himself  ;  and  can  no  more  so  quit  theni» 
"  as  to  make  the  creature  absolute  and  independent,  than  he  can 
"  make  the  creature  God."*  Hence  inevitably  there  must  be 
allowed  self-justice,  which  is  nothing  else,  save  that  fixed  determi 
nation  of  the  divine  will,  not  to  part  with  what  is  his  own  unalien- 
able right,  and  consequently  to  maintain  it. 

(3.)  This  justice,  in  order  to  maintain  God's  right  of  government, 
obliges  him  to  enact  penal  laAvs  as  the  measure  of  the  creature's 
subjection  and  obedience.  A  subject  cannot  be  without  laws. — 
And  where  the  creature  is  capable  of  transgressing,  laws  cannot 
be  such  without  penalties.  Without  these,  they  were  rather 
counsels  or  advices,  than  laws  ;  and  the  person  to  whom  they  are 
given  is  left  at  will  to  be  subject  to  them  or  not.  And  if  God  should 
thus  leave  the  creature  without  a  penalty,  then  upon  transgression, 
the  transgressor  has  slipt  entirely  out  under  the  dominion  of  God; 
for  he  is  not  actively,  in  that  instance,  subject  to  God.  And  nei- 
ther is  he  passively  subject,  if  there  is  no  penalty.  So  that  by 
this  means  God  has  forfeited  or  lost  his  right,  which  is  impossible. 
There  is  no  other  imaginable  tie  of  subjection,  but  either  the  pre^ 
cept  or  the  pena!  sanction  of  the  law,  whereby  rational  creatures, 
as  to  their  moral  dependence  can  be  bound.  Now  if  God  part 
with  the  one,  by  remitting  the  penalty,  or  enacting  laws  without  it, 
and  man  cast  off  the  other  by  disobedience,  the  creature  is,  at 
least  thus  far,  independent.  Which,  how  absurd  it  is,  it  is  easy  to 
see.  Wherefore,  in  case  the  creature  is  made,  we  cannot  but 
suppose  a  law  must  be  made  to  it.  And  if  the  creature  is  capable 
of  viobting  that  law,  there  must,  for  preserving  that  right,  which 
God  has  to  the  creature's  subjection,  be  a  penalty  annexed  to  that 
law.  Whence  it  seems  evident,  "  that  God  did  owe  it  to  himself 
"  primarily,  as  the  absolute  Sovereign  and  Lord  of  all,  not  to  suf- 

*  Living  Temple,  Part  2.  page  270. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      163 

«  fer  indignities  to  be  offered  him,    without  animadverting  upon 
"  them,  and  therefore  to  determine  he  would  do  so."* 

(4.)  The  creature  being  made,  justice  requires  that  it  should  be 
under  such  a  law  as  is  enacted  with  a  penalty,  and  such  a  law  be- 
ing now  enacted,  there  seems  to  arise  a  double  necessity  for  the 
execution  of  the  law,  in  case  of  transgression.  The  one  arising 
from  the  reason  of  the  law,  the  other  from  the  law  itself :  Since 
upon  the  grounds  already  laid  down,  the  law  was  necessary  ;  the 
same  grounds  enforce  the  execution  of  the  law  :  for  when  the  case 
falls  out,  for  which  the  law  was  provided,  it  is  not  merely  the  law 
or  constitution  itself,  but  the  execution  of  it  that  secures  the  end. 
When  the  creature  disobeys,  he  has  in  so  far  renounced  an  actual 
dependence  on,  and  subjection  to  the  law-giver  and  law  :  and 
therefore  it  seems  of  necessity  that  either  as  to  these  actions  he 
is  not  subject,  or  he  must  be  subject  to  the  penalty.  Again,  as 
the  reason  of  the  law  enforces  the  execution,  so  does  the  law  it- 
self. For  the  law  being  once  made,  justice  requires  that  its  honor 
be  secured  either  by  obedience,  or  by  the  subjection  of  the  trans- 
gressor to  the  punishment. 

(5.)  To  proceed  yet  further,  if  the  law  is  not  executed,  the 
design,  even  the  principal  design  of  punishment  in  this  case,  \h 
not  reached.  It  is  not  the  only  or  main  design  of  punishment  or 
penal  sanctions  to  reclaim  the  offender,  or  benefit  by-standers,  or 
secure  the  community.  It  is  true,  the  penal  sanction,  or  law 
enacting  the  penalty,  is  of  use  to  deter  from  transgressing,  and  so 
is  of  use  to  the  community,  and  all  under  the  government  ;  but 
the  execution,  if  the  sanction  is  punishment  after  this  life,  is  of  no 
advantage  to  the  offender,  nor  is  it  instructive  to  by-standers,  or 
the  rest  of  the  community,  who  do  not  see  it :  wherefore  these  are 
not  the  principal  ends  of  punishment.  Though  it  is  to  be  observ- 
ed, that  any  public  intimation  that  the  penalty  shall  not  be  inflict- 
ed, could  not  but  be  of  the  worst  consequence  to  the  community, 
as  rendering  it  vain  as  to  all  that  use,  which  it  has  of  deterring 
persons  who  are  under  the  law  from  sin.  Yet  I  say,  these  are  not 
the  principal  ends  of  punishment ;  but  the  satisfaction  of  the  law- 
giver. For  the  case  is  not  here,  as  it  is  in  human  governments, 
where  the  governors  and  government  are  both  constituted  for  the 
good  of  the  governed,  which  therefore  must  be  the  chief  aim  of  all 
laws  :  but  on  the  contrary,  the  governed  are  made,  and  the  laws 
made,  and  penalties  enacted  for  the  Governor,  who  made  all  things 
for  himself.  And  consequently,  the  principal  design  of  punish- 
ment is  the  securing  and  vindicating  his  honor  in  the  government. 
Nor  is  this  any  such  thing  as  answers  to  private  revenge  amongst 
men.  "  But  that  wherewith  we  must  suppose  the  blessed  God  to  be 

*  Living  Temple,  par^e  271. 


164  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  pleased  in  the  matter  of  punishing,  is  the  congruity  of  the  thing 
"  itself,  that  the  sacred  rights  of  his  government  over  the  world 
"  be  vindicated,  and  that  it  be  understood  how  ill  his  nature  can 
"  comport  with  any  thing  that  is  impure,  and  what  is  in  itself  so 
"  highly  incongruous,  cannot  but  be  the  matter  of  his  detestation. 
*'  He  takes  eternal  pleasure  in  the  reasonableness  and  fitness  of  his 
*'  own  determinations  and  actions  ;  and  rejoices  in  the  works  of 
•'  his  own  hands,  as  agreeing  with  the  apt,  eternal  schemes  and 
*'  models,  which  he  hath  conceived  in  his  own  most  wise  and  all- 
*'  comprehending  mind :  so  that  though  he  desireth  not  the  deatk 
"  of  sinners,  and  hath  no  delight  in  the  sufferings  of  his  afflicted 
*'  creatures,  which  his  immense  goodness  rather  inclines  him  to 
''  behold  with  compassion ;  yet  the  true  ends  of  punishment  are 
*'  so  much  a  greater  good,  than  their  ease  and  exemption  from  the 
*'  sufferings  they  had  deserved,  that  they  must  rather  be  chosen, 
"  and  cannot  be  eligible  for  any  other  reason,  but  for  that  which  also 
*'  they  are  to  be  delighted  in,  i.  e.  a  real  goodness,  and  conducible- 
"  ness  to  a  valuable  end  inherent  in  them." 

(6.)  As  justice  in  a  strict  sense,  of  which  hitherto  we  have  spo- 
ken, as  it  denotes  that  rectitude  of  the  divine  nature,  which  is  con- 
versant about,  and  conservative  of  the  divine  rights,  pleads  for  penal 
laws  and  punishment;  so  likewise  justice  in  a  large  sense,  as  it 
comprehends  all  his  moral  perfections,  holiness,  wisdom,  faithful- 
ness, &c.  and  answers  to  that  which  is  amongst  men  called  univer- 
sal justice,  pleads  for  the  same  :  for  so  taken,  it  comprehends  his 
holiness  and  perfect  detestation  of  all  impurity ;  in  respect  where- 
of he  cannot  but  be  perpetually  inclined  to  animadvert  with  seve- 
rity upon  sin ;  both  because  of  its  irreconcileable  contrariety  to 
his  holy  nature,  and  the  insolent  affront,  which  it  therefore  direct- 
ly offers  him ;  and  because  of  the  implicit  and  most  injurious  mis- 
representation of  him  which  it  contains  in  it,  as  if  he  were  either 
kindly  or  more  indifferently  affected  towards  it :  upon  which  ac- 
counts, we  may  well  suppose  him  to  esteem  it  necessary  for  him, 
both  to  constitute  a  rule  for  punishing  it,  and  to  punish  it  accord- 
ingly ;  that  he  may  both  truly  act  his  own  nature,  and  truly  repre- 
sent it.  Again,  it  includes,  thus  taken,  his  governing  wisdom, 
which  requires  indispenslbly  that  he  do  every  thing  In  his  govern- 
ment so  as  he  may  appear  like  himself,  and  answerably  to  his  own 
greatness  ;  so  as  to  secure  a  deep  regard  for  his  government,  and 
all  the  parts  of  the  constitution.  In  respect  whereof,  it  might  be 
shown,  that  the  punishment  of  sin,  or  the  execution  of  the  penal 
laws  solemnly  enacted  is  necessary.  Wisdom  takes  care  that  one 
attribute  do  not  quite  obscure  another,  and  will  not  allow  that  he 
gratify  mercy  to  the  detriment  of  justice.  Again,  it  includes  his 
faithfulness  and  sincerity,  which  seem  pledged  in  enacting  the  pe- 
nalty for  its  c:sccrjjjon.      How  Is  if:  consistent  v/ith  them  to  enact 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        165 

such  severe  penalties,  if  he  may  remit  them  without  any  repara- 
ion  made  for  the  wrong  done  ?  Any  one  that  would  see  more  to 
this  purpose,  besides  others  who  have  discoursed  of  Vindictive 
Justice,  may  peruse  the  learned  Dr.  How's  Living  Temple,  Part 
2.  Chap.  6  and  7,  who  has  learnedly  discoursed  and  improven  this 
subject :  to  whom  we  own  ourselves  Indebted  for  much  light  in 
this  matter. 

Thus  it  seems  evident,  that  whether  we  take  the  divine  justice 
in  this  last  and  largest  notion,  as  it  is  comprehensive  of  all  the  per- 
fections of  the  Deity,  or  in  the  former  and  strict  notion  as  it  im- 
ports a  virtue,  whose  province  it  is  to  take  care  of  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  incommunicable  rights  of  the  Deity,  and  vindicate  their 
honor  ;  it  seems  necessarily  to  forbid  the  remission  of  sin  without 
the  punishment  of  the  transgressor,  or  a  reparation  of  the  injured 
honor  of  the  Deity. 

If  it  be  alleged,  that  by  repentance  the  sinner  returns  to  his  sub- 
jection, and  so  the  honor  of  God's  government  is  repaired.  I  an- 
swer, that  upon  supposition  of  the  sinner's  return  being  a  suffi- 
cient reparation  of  the  honour  of  the  Deity,  there  would  indeed 
be  no  necessity  of  punishment :  but  this  is  the  question,  and  the 
objection  begs  what  is  in  question.  The  principles  now  laid 
down,  shew  that  justice,  however  taken,  must  take  care  to  pre- 
serve and  vindicate  God's  honor  in  case  of  transgression.  The 
penal  sanction  of  the  law  tells  rs,  that  the  punishment  of  the  trans- 
gressor is  that  which  wisdom  and  justice  have  fixed  on,  as  proper 
for  this  end.  There  is  no  alternative,  punishment  or  repentance. 
The  law  makes  only  mention  of  punishment.  When  therefore 
the  objectors  say  that  repentance  is  sufficient,  we  deny  it. — 
They  do  not  prove  It,  nor  can  they.  God,  to  whom  alone 
it  belongs  to  determine  what  is  necessary  for  the  vindication  of 
his  own  honour,  must  determine  the  reparation  ;  we  cannot.  Yea, 
it  were  presumption  in  angels  to  do  it.  God  has  fixed  upon  pun- 
ishment  :  if  he  allow  of  any  thing  else,  the  light  of  nature  does 
not  tell  it.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  repentance,  as 
has  been  above  cleared,  that  can  Induce  us  to  think  it  is  sufficient 
to  this  purpose.  The  most  virtuous,  who  must  be  supposed  the 
penitents,  if  there  are  any  such,  meet  with  as  heavy  punishments 
in  this  life  as  any,  which  shews,  at  least,  that  God  looks  not  upon 
their  penitence  as  satisfaction. 

6.  Against  this  proposition  we  reason  thus  :  Every  man  is  en- 
dued with  a  power  to  repent  when  he  pleases,  or  he  is  not.  To 
assert  the  latter,  were  to  yield  the  cause ;  for  it  matters  not  to 
the  sinner,  whether  repentance  be  a  sufficient  atonement  or  not,  if 
jt  be  not  in  his  power  to  repent.  Besides,  it  is  a  question  in  this 
case  of  considerable  difficulty,  whether  it  is  consistent  with  the 
perfections  of  God  to  give  this  power,  till  once  his  honor  is  se- 


166  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

cured  by  a  suitable  reparation  for  the  injury  done  it  by  sin.  If  it 
is  in  the  sinner's  power  to  repent  when  he  pleases,  then  again  I 
insist, 

Either  God  w^ithout  impeachment  of  his  justice  may  inflict  the 
punishment  contained  in  the  sanction  of  the  law  on  the  sinner, 
notwithstanding  of  his  repentance,  or  he  may  not.  If  he  may, 
then  the  Deists  can  never  without  revelation  be  sure  that  he  will 
not  inflict  the  punishment,  which  is  what  we  say  :  nor  will  it  mend 
the  matter,  to  say  that  though  God,  without  the  impeachment  of  his 
justice,  may  punish  the  repenting  sinner,  yet  he  cannot  do  it  with- 
out injuring  his  mercy :  for  what  is  contrary  to  one  of  God's  attri- 
butes, is  so  to  all.  And  moreover,  the  justice  of  God  in  any  par- 
ticular requires  that  each  of  the  divine  attributes  have  their  due. 

But  if  it  be  said,  that  God  cannot  in  justice  punish  the  repent- 
ing sinner ;  then  I  desire  to  be  satisfied,  if  this  does  not  evacuate 
and  make  void  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law  ?  For  if  every  man 
hath  a  power  to  repent  when  he  pleases,  and  this  repentance  stops 
the  execution  of  the  sentence,  I  do  not  see  but  any  may  offend 
without  hazard. 

All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  God  may  surprize  man  in  the  very 
act  of  sinning,  or  so  soon  after  it,  that  he  shall  not  have  time  to 
repent,  and  so  man's  hazard  is  sufficient  to  deter  him  from  sin. 

But  to  this  I  answer,  that  the  consideration  of  this  hazard  can 
never  have  much  influence  on  man,  to  make  him  refuse  the  grati- 
fying of  his  senses,  in  which  he  finds  so  much  pleasure,  so  long  as 
in  the  ordinary  conduct  of  providence  he  sees  that  God  very 
rarely  takes  that  course  of  snatching  away  sinners  in  the  very  act 
of  sin,  or  so  soon  after  as  to  preclude  repentance.  It  is  not  so 
much  what  God  may  do,  as  what  he  ordinarily  does,  that  is  of 
weight  to  determine  men,  especially  when  they  have  so  strong  mo- 
tives to  persuade  them  to  the  contrary,  as  the  impetuous  cravings 
©f  unruly  lusts  are  known  to  be. 

This  argument  gives  us  a  clear  view  how  much  the  Deist's  no- 
tion of  pardon  upon  mere  repentance  favours  sin ;  and  how  un- 
reasonable the  outcries  of  Herbert  and  Blount,  repeated  ad  nause- 
am, against  the  maintainers  of  satisfaction  really  are.  They  say, 
the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  makes  sin  cheap.  But  whether  do 
they  who  say  that  sin  cannot  be  pardoned  without  the  sinner's  re- 
pentance and  satisfaction,  or  they  who  assert  repentance  alone  Is 
sufficient,  make  sin  cheapest  ? 

7.  I  further  argue  against  this  doctrine,  that  this  constitution, 
grant  or  allowance  of  repentance,  in  case  of  transgression,  is  either 
cc-seval  with  the  law,  and  has  its  rise  as  the  law  hath,  in  the  relation 
betwixt  God  and  man  and  their  natures,  as  being  a  necessary  re- 
sult of  them  ;  or  it  is  a  posterior  establishment,  and  an  act  of  free 
and  gracious  condescension  in  God,  to  which  he  W'as  not  neces- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      167 

sarlly  obliged.  If  this  last  is  said,  then  I  say,  this  could  not  be 
known,  but  by  a  revelation  or  some  deed  of  God,  expressive  of  his 
mind  in  this  matter.  The  first  is  Denied  by  the  deists  ;  ami  we 
desire  them  to  produce  the  work  of  providence  whereon  it  is  le- 
gible, that  God  without  any  reparation  to  his  justice  for  the  in- 
jury done  him  by  sin,  will  pardon  the  sinner  upon  his  penitence 
and  admit  him  to  bliss.  For  though  we  should  admit,  that  some 
works  of  providence  singly  taken,  without  observing  others  which 
may  have  a  contrary  aspect,  have  somewhat  like  an  intimation  of 
a  placability,  which  we  see  but  little  reason  to  do  ;  yet  we  deny 
positively  that  there  is  any  that  specifies  the  terms,  or  particular- 
ly condescends  on  repentance,  as  that  whereon  he  will  be  pacified 
and  reconciled  to  sinners.  And  if  any  will  pretend  to  draw  this 
from  them,  I  wish  they  would  essay  it,  and  let  us  see  of  what 
form  their  procedure  will  be  :  perhaps  they  may  prove,  that  it  is 
not  consistent  with  God's  attributes  to  pardon  an  impenitent  sin- 
ner :  but  if  they  think  thence  to  infer,  that  therefore  it  is  consist- 
ent to  his  attributes  to  pardon  one  merely  upon  his  penitence,  they 
may  make  good  the  consequence  if  they  can  ;  they  will  find  it 
harder  than  it  appears. 

If  the  former  is  said,  that  this  constitution  is  co-JBval  with  the 
kiw,  and  is  as  much  a  necessary  result  of  the  nature  of  God  and 
man,  and  their  mutual  relation,  as  the  law  itself :  besides  what  has 
been  said  to  demonstrate  the  folly  of  it,  let  these  three  things  be 
considered  : 

(1.)  The  deists  do,  and  are  obliged  to  say,  that  man  is  not  now 
from  his  birth  more  corrupt  than  he  was  at  first. 

(2.)  JMan  at  his  original  v.as,  and  consequently  according  to 
them,  still  is  endued  with  power  sufficient  perfectly  to  know  and 
obey  the  law  he  is  subjected  to.  To  say  that  he  was  subjected  to 
a  law,  which  he  was  not  able  to  know  or  obey,  is  to  accuse  the 
Deity  of  folly  and  injustice  ;  as  has  been  made  appear. 

(3.)  The  law  to  which  man  is  subjected,  is  exactly  suited  to 
God's  great  design,  his  own  glory  and  man's  happiness. 

These  being  granted,  I  conceive  it  evident,  1.  That  nothing 
can  be  said  more  injurious  to  the  glorious  perfections  of  God, 
than  that  any  of  them  gives  ground  of  hopes,  far  less  assurance  of 
impunity  to  man,  if  he  break  these  laws,  which  are  equciily  suited 
to  promote  God's  glory  and  his  own  good,  and  which  he  wanted 
neither  power  to  know  nor  obey.  2.  Such  a  grant  would  be  of 
no  less  dangerous  consequence  to  man,  because  it  could  be  of  no 
other  use,  than  (o  attempt  a  violation  of  those  laws,  which  it  is  s& 
much  his  interest  to  obey. 

But  some  may  say,  it  would  be  discouraging  to  man  to  think  he 
were  undone,  if  he  disobeyed  in  the  least.     I  answer,  tliis  cotild 


16a  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

be  no  reasonable  discouragement  if  he  was  possessed  of  power 
perfectly  to  know  and  obey  the  law  he  was  subjected  to. 

Again,  it  may  be  said,  that  it  was  necessary  there  should  be 
such  an  encourgement  to  man ;  because,  though  he  was  entrust- 
ed with  sufficient  power  to  know  and  obey  the  law  of  God  ;  yet 
he  was  for  trial  exposed  to  a  great  many  strong  and  forcible  temp- 
tations to  disobedience. 

Foi  answer  to  this  ;  suppose  two  men  equally  able  to  know  and 
obey  the  law  ;  the  one  knows  he  may  obtain  pardon  on  repentance, 
the  other  believes  himself  irrecoverably  lost  if  he  transgress  ;  I 
desire  the  objector,  on  supposition  that  both  were  attacked  with  a 
temptation  equally  strong,  to  answer  me  seriously,  1 .  Which  of 
those  two  would  in  all  probability  soonest  yield  ;  he  that  saw  a 
probability  of  escape  or  he  that  saw  none  ?  2.  Since  the  keep- 
ing of  the  law  was  highly  advantageous  to  both,  which  of  the  two  is 
in  the  best  state  ;  he  who  has  this  strong  motive  to  obedience, 
that  he  is  ruined  if  he  disobey,  or  he  that  hath  this  encouragement 
and  enforcement  of  the  temptation  to  disobedience,  that  he  may 
disobey  and  escape  ?  Nor  will  they  evade  by  saying,  that  this 
constitution  was  knowable  before,  but  was  not  taken  notice  of  till 
sin  fell  out :  for  if  it  might  be  known,  all  the  inconveniences  men- 
tioned will  follow.  Besides,  if  it  was  taken  notice  of  after  the  first 
sin,  it  might  be  a  temptation  to  all  succeeding  transgressions. 

In  fine,  if  this  allowance  of  repentance  be  said  to  have  the  same 
rise  with  the  law,  and  be  equally  necessary  from  the  nature  of  God 
and  man  and  their  mutual  relation ;  it  is  a  plain  dispensation  with 
the  law,  and  that  equally  made  public,  being  notified  in  the  same 
way  as  the  law  is ;  which  way  it  is  consistent  with  the  wisdom, 
holiness  and  justice  of  God,  I  know  not. 

8.  To  add  no  more  on  this  head,  if  this  story  about  the  suffi- 
ciency of  repentance  lies  so  open  to  the  light  of  nature,  whence 
was  it  that  It  was  so  little  discerned  ?  The  name  of  it,  in  the  sense 
and  to  that  use  we  now  speak  of,  scarce  occurs  among  the  an- 
cients, if  we  may  believe  Herbert,  who  read  them  all  with  great 
diligence,  and  with  a  design  to  find  what  was  for  his  purpose. 
Speaking  of  their  sins,  he  says  :  "  Neque  igitur  mihi  dubkim  est, 
«  quin  eorum  pcunituerit  Gentiles,  qua  tot  mala  accerserunt,  licet 
«  rarius  quidem  i^miitentiiL  verbnm  inter  authores,  eo,  quo  jam 
«  iisiirpatiir  sensu,  reperiatur.^^*  Why  does  not  he  doubt  of  it  ? 
The  reason,  he  goes  on,  is,  because  they  used  sacrifices.  But  I 
suppose  for  this  very  reason  some  do  doubt  if  they  thought  re- 
pentance sufficient  :  but  of  this  more  by  and  by.     The  philoso- 

•  Herbert  de  Relig.  GentH.  page  198.—"  Nor  is  it  therefore  a  doubt  with 
"  me,  that  the  Gentiles  repented  of  those  crimes  which  brought  so  many 
"  evils  upon  them,  although  the  word  repentr.nce,  in  that  sense  which  it  is 
"  now  used,  seldom  occurs  in  thciv  authors." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      169 

pliers  neither  taught  nor  practi-sed  it.  It  is  true,  Periancler  one 
of  the  wise  men  of  Greece,  had  this  for  his  saying  :  Af^x^Tci* 
fttrctfiaXcvs,  "  Repent  of  thj  sin^  ;"  that  ia,  possibly,  leave  them 
off".  For  who  can  iell  us  whether  he  had  n  riglit  notion  of  repent- 
ance, or  of  what  avail  he  thous;ht  it  '  Seneca  say.-;.  Qunn  panifd 
pecasse  pens  est  innoct'ns.f  This  is  spoken  wiih  his  usual  pride 
(hat  made  him  think  little  of  r.in.  P>ut  vdiere  is  the  person  that 
taught  repentance,  or  offered  to  evince  it  sufficient  to  atone  tlie 
Deity  ?  Most  of  them  contemptuously  disregarded  it.  We  fiud. 
nothing  like  it  in  their  l)est  moi'?list's  practice  :  but  on  the  con- 
trary, they  were  so  puftcd  up  with  their  virtues,  that  they  mode 
no  account  of  their  sins.  The  priests  taught  not  tliis  doctrine,  for 
they  inculcated  sacrifices  as  necessary  to  aloue  the  Deity.  And 
if  we  may  believe  no  incompetent  judge,  bctii  priests  and  people 
were  pei-suaded  that  repentance  is  not  sufficient  to  atone  the  Dei- 
ty. It  is  Cassar  who  tells  us,  that,  "  Pro  vita  hominis  nisi  vita- 
"•  hominis  reddatnr  non  posse  deornm  immorfalinm  numen  place-' 
"  ri  arbitmniur  6rfl///."J  To  which  we  might  add  many  more 
testimonies  to  the  same  purpose.  Nor  do  we  find  any  thing  like 
Ihis  discovery  among  them  ;  which  is  very  strange  in  a  matter  of 
importance,  if  it  was  so  clearly  revealed.  That  which  is  most 
like  what  they  would  be  at,  is  what  we  find  in  Ovid  : 

Saepe  le\'ant  poenas,  ereptaque  lumina  redcliint 
Quem  bene  peccati  penituisse  vides.     Et  alibi, 

Qnamvis  est  ig-itur  meritis  indebita  nostris. 
Magna  tamen  6pes  est  in  bonitate  Dei'* 

But  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  :  how  many  of  the  poets'  no- 
tions, and  particularly  this  one,  were  traditional  ?  How  evidently 
were  their  notions  of  all  things  about  the  gods  suited  to  their  own 
fabulous  stories  of  the  clemency  of  the  gods.  And  besides,  we 
have  no  assurance  that  he  understood  what  we  do  by  repentance. 
Nor  indeed  could  he.     But  more  of  this  anon. 

Objections  Considered. 

IT  remains  now  that  we  take  notice  of  some  considerable  ob- 
jections that  dxe  made  against  what  hitherto  has  been  discoursed 
by  diftercnt  persons,  on  difFererit  views  and  principles. 

t  "  He  who  repents  of  having-  sinned  is  almost  innocent." 
i  Carsardc  Bcllo  Gal.  Lib.  6.     See  Outramus  de  Sacrificiis,  Lib.  1.  Cap.  32. 
"  The  Gauls  are  of  opinion  that  the  ^Majesty  of  the  immortal  gods  cannot  het 
"  appeased  unless  the  life  of  a  man  be  given  for  the  life  of  man."' 

•  De  Ponto  Lib.  1.  Eleg.  L  7. — "  You  see  that  he  who  didy  i-epents  of  hir. 
"offence,  often  alleviates  his  punishment,  and  recovers  his  lost  light. — Al- 
"  though  therefore  it  is  not  dvie  tb  our  merits,  yet  there  is  great  hop''  in  Ttic- 
*'  goodness  of  God." 

22 


170  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

I.  Hay  some,  if  the  case  is  so  apparent  thai  all  have  sinned,  and 
the  relief  is  so  hid,  that  nature's  light  could  not  discern  it ;  whence 
is  it  that  all  men  run  not  to  despair  and  take  sanctuary  here  ? 
Whence  is  it  that  religious  worship  was  universally  continued  in 
Ihe  world  ?  Yea,  Avhcnce  is  it  that  such  a  worship  universally  ob- 
tained, that  seems  founded  on  the  supposition  of  a  placable  God  ? 

To  this  specious  argument  we  answer,  that  many  things  there 
are  in  nature,  whereof  Ave  can  give  no  satisfying  account.  And  if 
there  should  prove  something  in  morality  too,  not  to  be  accounted 
for,  it  were  not  to  be  wondered  at.  But  not  to  insist  on  this,  I 
answer  directly.  A  fair  account  may  be  given  of  this  otherwise 
than  by  admitting  what  we  have  oveilln'own  upon  so  many  clear 
aigiunents.  Towards  which,  we  shall  make  the  following  attempt : 
1.  The  natural  notices  of  a  Deity,  that  are  inlaid  in  the  minds  of 
men,  strongly  prompted  them  to  Avorship  some  one  or  other. 
From  this  natural  obligation  they  could  not  shake  themselves  loose. 
•2.  Their  ignorance  and  darkness  as  to  the  real  horror  of  the  case, 
made  them  think  little  of  sin,  and  consequently  apprehend  that  it 
Avould  not  proA^e  such  an  obstruction  to  acceptance,  as  really  they 
Isad  reason  to  apprehend  it  Avas.  3.  All  Avho  allow  of  revelation, 
oAvn  that  the  revelation  of  forgiv^eness,  as  well  as  the  means  of 
obtaining  it,  Avas  tAA^ice  universal  in  the  days  of  Adam  and  Noah. 
4.  Though  this  rcA'clation  was  in  so  far  lost  by  the  generality  of 
mankind,  that  it  could  not  be  useful  to  its  proper  end,  yet  some- 
AAhat  of  it  still  remained  in  the  AA^orld,  and  spread  itself  AA'ith  man- 
kind. 5.  All  sorts  of  men  found  their  interest  and  account  in 
keeping  it  up.  The  priests  Avho  engrossed  the  advantage  of  the 
leligion  of  the  AAorld,  found  their  gain  in  it.  The  politicians  Avho 
.niraed  at  the  good  of  society,  found  it  useful  to  their  purpose.  The 
poets  Avho  aimed  at  pleasing,  found  it  capable  of  tickling  the  ears  of 
»  AA'orld  iuA'oIved  in  sin.  And  the  people  Avhose  consciences  AA'ere 
harrassed  with  guilt  of  atrocious  crimes,  found  some  sort  of  relief. 
And  AA'hat  all  found  some  benefit  by,  was  not  likely  quite  to  be  lost. 
The  philosophers  seeing  the  strait  of  the  case,  saw  that  they 
could  not  make  a  better  of  it  and  so  acquiesced.  6.  Their  pro- 
fane conceptions  of  the  deities,  as  if  they  AA'ere  persons  that  allow- 
ed or  practised  their  evils,  did  help  forAvard.  The  gods  Avhich 
their  OAvn  fancy  had  framed,  they  could  cast  into  Avhat  mould  they 
pleased,  as  it  best  suited  their  interest  or  inclinations.  7.  Satan, 
Av  ho  acted  a  very  visible  part  among  them,  and  bore  sway  Avlthout 
controul,  no  doubt  had  a  deep  hand  in  the  matter,  and  could  vari- 
ously revive,  alter  and  manage  the  tradition,  natural  notices  and 
interests  of  men,  so  as  to  make  his  oavu  advantage  of  them.  Other 
things  might  be  added,  shewing  the  concernment  of  the  holy  God 
m  tills  matter,  which  I  shall  Avave  for  some  reasons  that  are  satis- 
fying to  my;£elf.     But  what  is  said,  I  conceive  sufficient  to  blunt 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      171 

ibe  edge  of  the  objection.     I  shall  only  subjoin  the  words  of  the 

learned  Amyrald,  vvlio  after  lie  has  owned  the  natural  discoveiies 

of  placability  ;  but  withal  shown  their  uselessness,  and  that  they 

had  no  influence  nor  could  have,  in  the  words  formerly  quoted,  at 

length  he  moves  this  same  objection  that  we  have  here  proposed, 

and  returns  the  answer,  which  we  shall  now  transcribe,  though  it 

is  somewhat  long,  the  rather  because  it  comes  from  a  person  not 

only  of  great  learning,  but  one  who  owned  placability  might  be 

demonstrated  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  yet  denies  tliat  it  was 

the  foundation  of  the  religion   that  was  to  be  found  in  the  world. 

"  But  perhaps  (says  he)  it  will  here  be  demanded,  whence  then 

"  came  it  to  pass  that  all  nations  have  each  of  them  had  its  reli- 

"  gion  ?    And  why  are  not  all  men  dissociated  instead  of  hanging 

"  together   in  religious    society  ?    To   which  I  answer,  that  the 

•'  mind  of  man  is  never  agitated  with  the  same  emotions,  nor  con- 

"  stant  in  the  same  thoughts  ;  the  same  passion  not  always  pos- 

*'  sessing  him,  nor  the  same  vice.     They  take  their  turns,  or  suc- 

"  ceed  and  mingle  one  with  another.  Two  things  therefore  have  hin- 

"  dered  that  men,  though  possessed  with  fear,  have  not  abandoned 

"  all  service  of  the  Deity — profaneness  and  pride  :  God  permitting 

"  the  profaneness  of  some  and  the  presumption  of  others  to  tem- 

"  per  the  terror  of  conscience.     First,  profaneness  ;  because  not 

"  weighing  sufficiently  how  much  God  abominates  vice,  and  how 

"  inexorable  his  justice   is,  they  often  have  flattered  themselves 

"  with  this  thought,  that  he  scarce  takes  any  notice  of  small  of- 

"  fences,  and  such  as  are  in  the  intention  and  purpose  only,  that 

"  is,  in  the  aflTections  of  the  will  and  not  in  actions  really  execut- 

"  ed.  Moreover,  they  thought  he  was  not  much  incensed,  but  with 

"  crimes  that  turn  to   some  notable  detriment  to  the  common- 

"  wealth,  or  carry  some  blot  of  infamous  improbity.     Although 

"  m^^sculine  lust  was   either  justified  or  excused,  or  tolerated  by 

"  the  most  civilized  people  of  Greece.     And  they  were  some- 

"  times  so  besotted  in  their  devotions,  that  they  thought  not  but 

"  crimes  of  the  greatest  turpitude  with  no  great  difficulty  might 

"  be  expiated  by  their  sacrifices,  lustrations,  religious  processions, 

"  mysteries  and  bacchanal   solemnities.     On  the  other  side,  pre- 

"  sumption  ;  because   not  sufficiently  acknowledging  how   much 

"  tliey  owed  to  the  Deity,  they  imagined  that  their  good  works, 

"  their  offerings,  and  the  exercise  of  that  shadow  of  virtue,  which 

"  they  pursued,  might  countervail  the  oflTences  they  committed  : 

"  so  that  were  they  balanced   together,  there  might  be  hope  not 

"  only  to  avoid  punishment,  but  moreover  to  obtain  recompence. 

"  Upon  which  groimd  it  was   that   Socrates  being  near  his  end, 

"  and  discoursing  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  speaks  largely  of 

"  his  hope,  (in  case  the  soul   be   not  extinguished  with  the  body) 

"  to  CO  and  live  with  Hercules  and  Palamedes,  and  the  other  per- 


172  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  sons  of  high  account.  But  as  to  asking  God  pardon  of  the 
*'  oflfences  he  had  committed,  he  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  it  ; 
*'  because  though  he  spoke  always  dissembllngly  of  himself,  he 
*'  had  in  the  bottom  of  his  soul  great  opinion  of  his  own  viitue, 
*'  and  made  no  great  reckoning  of  his  vices,  from  which  notwith- 
*'  standing  he  was  no  more  exempt  than  others.  And  had  his  life 
*'  been  of  such  purity,  that  the  eyes  of  men  could  not  discern  a 
*'  blot  in  it  (although  some  have  written  infamous  matters  of  him) 
*'  yet  when  the  account  is  to  be  made  up  with  God,  there  needs 
*'  another  perfection  of  virtue  than  that  of  his  to  satisfy  so  exact 
*'  a  justice.  But  yet  further,  oftentimes  these  two  vices  of  pro- 
*'  faneness  and  pi'csumption  have  met  together  in  the  same  sub- 
*'  ject,  and  lulled  men  with  vain  hopes  into  absolute  supiuity. 
*  Whence  the  excess  of  fear  hath  been  retrenciied,  which  would 
*'  otherwise  have  at  last  turned  into  despair,  and  consequently  not 
*'  only  dissipated  all  communion  in  religion,  but  likcMise  ruined  all 
*'  human  society.  For  fear  rcntraining  man  on  the  one  side  from 
*'  absolutely  contemning  the  Deity  by  jirofaneness,  on  the  other 
**  side,  profaneness  and  presum.ption  hindered  it  from  precipi- 
*'  tating  men  into  that  furious  despair  which  would  have  over- 
*'  thrown  all,  and  caused  more  horrible  agitations  in  the  mind  of 
*'  man,  than  ever  the  most' outrageous  Bacchides  were  sensible  of. 
"  So  that  by  the  mixture,  vicissitude  and  variation  of  these  di- 
*'  verse^  humours  has  religion  been  maintained  in  the  world.  But 
"  it  is  easy  to  judge  how  sincere  that  devotion  was,  which  was 
*'  bred  of  fear,  (a  passion  that  is  naturally  terminated  in  hatred) 
"  self-presumption,  and  misapprehension  of  the  justice  of  God. 
*'  Whereas  the  certain  knowledge  of  the  remission  of  sins,  of 
"  which  the  special  revelation  fiom  heaven  can  only  give  us  as- 
"  sured  hope,  is  a  marvellous  powerfully  attractive  to  piety,  out  of 
*■'  gratitude  towards  so  inestimable  a  goodness."* 

II.  Some  object  against  what  has  been  proven,  That  God  is 
good,  compassionate  and  kind  ;  and  that  natures  of  i'v.y  excellency 
take  pleasure  in  exercising  mercy,  com.passion  and  kindness,  and 
"ivith  difficulty  are  brought  to  acts  of  sevej'ity. 

I  answer,  1 .  The  goodness,  kindness,  mercy  and  compassion  of 
God  are  a  prett}^  subject  for  men  to  declaim  and  nvtke  harangues 
about.  But  when  they  are  made,  the}' are  little  to  the  purpose; 
for  they  aj-e  easily  answered  by  a  representation  of  the  justice  ami 
Sioliness  of  God.  And  the  difficulty  is  not  touched,  unless  men 
can  shew  how  these  seemingly  jarring  attributes  maybe  consistent. 
2.  The  inferences  men  must  draw  from  such  representations  of  the 
nature  of  God,  are  such  as  mil  cross  the  experience  of  mankind 
who  want  revelation,  and  sec  many  effects  of  his  bounty,  goodness, 


Aniyi-;.ld  of  K-li^.  Tavt  1.  Chap.  7-  F^o^  ^^h 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      173 

forbearance  and  patience,  but  none  of  his  pardoning  mercy  ;  and 
many  of  his  justice  and  holy  severity.  Wherefore  we  may  leave 
this  subject  and  proceed,  though  much  might  be  said  to  clear  how 
little  all  this  is  to  the  purpose.  But  we  conceive  this  is  apparent 
from  what  has  been  above  discoursed. 

III.  It  is  said,  "  That  the  very  command  of  God  to  use  his  ap- 
"  pointed  means  for  men's  recovery,  doth  imply  that  it  shall  not 
♦'  be  in  vain ;  and  doth  not  only  shew  a  possibility,  but  so  great  a 
"  hopefulness  of  success  to  the  obedient,  as  may  encourage  them 
"  cheerfully  to  undertake  it,  and  carry  it  through.*" 

In  ansAver  to  this,  I  have  above  cleared,  that  men  are  still  oblig- 
ed to  obey ;  that  there  are  many  things,  of  which  several  are  by 
him  mentioned  in  the  subsequent  sections  of  that  chapter,  whence 
these  words  are  quoted,  which  might  be  improven  to  excite  man  to 
a  cordial  compliance,  in  case  there  were  a  new,  clear  and  plain  in- 
vitation to  a  return  with  hope  of  acceptance.  And  I  admit,  that 
to  deny  this,  as  he  says,  in  the  words  immediately  proceeding  those 
now  quoted,  were  to  make  earth  a  hell.  Yea  further,  so  long  as 
men  are  out  of  hell,  there  is  still  a  possibility  in  the  case  :  but  that 
there  is  any  such  invitation  given,  or  assurance  of  a  hopeful  issue, 
or  means  directly  and  specially  instituted  by  God  as  means  of  re- 
covery, knowable  by  men  left  to  the  mere  light  of  nature,  I  deny  : 
because  I  see  not  the  shadow,  of  a  proof  and  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary that  has  been  offered. 

IV.  It  is  alledgedby  the  same  author,  That  God's  commanding 
us  to  forgive  others,  encourages  us  to  expect  forgiveness  at  his 
hand. 

.To  this  I  say,  1  .•  The  learned  person  owns,  "  That  from  this 
"  it  doth  not  follow,  that  God  must  forgive  all,  which  he  bindeth 
"  us  to  foigive,  for  reasons  he  had  before  expressed."  2.  I  say, 
that  this,  the  command  of  God  to  forgive  others,  lies  not  so  open 
to  the  view  of  nature's  light,  as  that  every  one  can  discern  it. — 
And  besides,  it  admits  of  many  exceptions,  for  ought  that  unas- 
sisted nature  can  discover.  3.  It  is  restricted  to  private  persons, 
and  is  not  to  be  extended  to  public  injuries  done  against  govern- 
ment. 4.  When  it  is  found  to  be  our  duty  by  nature's  light,  we 
are  brought  to  see  it  by  such  reasons  as  these.  That  we  need  the 
like  favour  at  their  hands,  that  we  are  frail,  &c.  which  gives  us 
ground  to  be  jealous  that  the  like  is  not  to  be  expected  at  his  hand, 
with  whom  these  things  have  no  place,  which  are  the  reason  of  the 
law  to  us.  So  that  from  this,  as  it  is  discoverable  by  nature's  light, 
no  sure  inference  can  be  drawn. 


'  Baxter's  Reasons  of  Christ.  Rcliff.  Part  1,  Chap.  17.  §  9.  patje  186, 


174  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

V.  It  is  objected,  That  sacrifices  and  all  the  religious  services 
amongst  the  Heathens,  were  only  symbolical  of  a  good  life  and  re- 
pentance.* 

To  this  I  say,  1 .  If  this  were  true,  Herbert  and  the  Deists  arc 
much  in  the  wrong  to  the  priests  who  urged  the  use  of  them,  as 
men  who  neglected  to  inculcate  repentance.  For  any  thing  1  can 
see  they  were  more  commendable  than  the  philosophers,  who  nei- 
ther taught  nor  practised  repentance,  and  vilified  sacrifices.  But 
2.  This  is  a  scandalous  falsehood ;  for  there  is  nothing  more  evi- 
dent, than  that  by  the  sacrifices  they  designed  to  atone  the  deities, 
and  expected  that  they  should  be  accepted  in  place  of  the  offerers, 
and  their  death  be  admitted  instead  of  what  they  had  deserved 
themselves.  See  abundance  of  testimonies  given  to  this  by  him  to 
whom  we  refened,  when  we  quoted  Caesars  testim.ony  to  this  pur- 
pose ;  I  mean  Outram.  What,  I  pray,  meant  the  custom  that 
prevailed,  not  only  among  the  Jews,  but  Heathens,  of  offering  their 
sacrifices  with  solemn  prayers  to  God,  that  all  the  plagues  which 
they  or  their  country  had  deserved,  might  light  on  the  head  of  the 
victim ;  and  so  they  themselves  escape  ?  And  hereupon  they 
thought  that  all  their  sins  did  meet  upon  it,  and  defile  it  to  that  de- 
gree, that  none  who  had  touched  it  dared  to  return  home  till  they 
had  washed  and  purified  themselves.  Suidas  reports  of  the  Greeks, 
*'  Quod,  ei,  qui  mnlis  overruncandis  quotannis  destinatus  erat,  sic 
*'  imprecahanhir,  sis  7repf<pi}f^«,  nostrum,  hoc  est,  salus  <^  redemp- 
"  tio.  Atque  ita  ilium  in  mare projiciebant,  quasi  Neptuno  sacrum 
"  persolventes.^'f  Servius  tells  us,  *'  Massilieness,  quoties  pesti- 
"  lentia  laborabant,  unus  se  ex  pauperibus  offerebat,  alendus  anno 
"  integro  publicis  ^  imrioribus  cibis.  Hicpostea,  ornatus  verbe- 
"  nis  8r  vestibus  sacris,  circumducebaliir  per  iolam  civitatem  cum 
*'  execrationibu^,  ut  in  ipsum  reciderent  mala  totius  civitalis  ;  & 
"  sic  proiiciebatur."X  But  we  have  stayed  too  long  in  rufuting 
this  mad  and  ungrounded  conceit. 

VI.  Some,  to  prove  that  the  works  of  providence,  particularly 
liis  forbearance  to  sinners  and  bounty  to  them,  do  call  men  to  re- 
pentance without  the  word,  urge  the  apostle's  words,  Rom.  ii.  4. 
Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance,  and 


*  See  A.  W.  Letter,  Oracles  of  Reason. 

t  "  They  cursed  the  person  who  was  3'early  appointed  for  averting  misfor- 
"  tunes,  in  this  manner,  "  Be  thou  our  atonement,"  that  is,  our  safety  and 
"  redemption  ;  and  so  they  threw  him  into  the  sea,  as  performing  a  sacrifice 
"  to  Neptune." 

t  "  As  often  as  the  Massilians  were  afflicted  with  the  pestilence,  one  of 
"  the  poor  offered  himself,  who  was  to  be  nourislied  for  a  whole  year  with 
"  clean  victuals,  at  tht  public  expcnce,  after  which  being  adorned  with  ver- 
•'  vains  nnd  sacred  garments,  he  was  led  round  the  whole  city  with  execra- 
"  tions,  that  the  mi.sfortunes  of  the  whole  city  might  fall  upon  him,  and  thus 
"  he  was  cast  out." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      175 

iong'Suffering,  not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  Icadeth  thee 
to  repentance  ?  To  this  we  answer, 

1.  Divines,  and  these  not  a  few,  nor  of  the  lowest  form,  do  un- 
derstand this  whole  context  of  the  Jews ;  and  they  urge  reasons 
for  it  -that  are  not  contemptible.  If  this  opinion  hold,  no  more 
can  be  drawn  from  these  words,  than  what  has  been  already  grant- 
ed without  any  prejudice  to  our  cause,  viz.  that  this  dispensation, 
where  persons  are  otherwise  under  a  call  to  repentance,  gives  time 
to  repent,  and  enforceth  the  obligation  of  that  call  they  are  under. 

2.  But  to  cut  off  all  pretence  of  any  plea  from  this  scripture,  we 
shall  take  under  our  consideration  the  apostle's  whole  discourse, 
from  the  16th  ver.  of  the  4th  chap,  to  the  4th  ver.  of  the  lid,  and 
give  a  view  of  these  words,  and  other  passages  insisted  on  to  the 
same  purpose,  with  a  special  eye  to  the  apostle's  scope  in  the  dis- 
course, and  the  particular  design  of  every  passage.  And  this  we 
shall  undertake,  not  so  much  out  of  any  regard  to  this  objection  in 
particular,  but  to  obviate  the  abuse  of  several  passages  of  this  dis- 
course of  the  apostle,  by  whom  we  shall  have  just  now  occasion  to 
debate  almost  every  verse  in  this  second  chapter.  If,  therefore, 
our  solution  of  the  apostle's  discourse  seem  a  little  tedious  at  pre- 
sent, this  disadvantage  will  be  compensated  by  the  light  it  will  con- 
tribute for  clearing  many  of  the   ensuing  objections. 

The  apostle  Paul,  Rom.  i.  1 6.  had  asserted,  that  the  gospel  is 
the  power  of  God  to  salvation  to  every  one  that  believes,  to  the  Jew 
frst,  and  also  to  the  Greek,  that  is,  it  is  the  only  powerful  mean  of 
salvation  to  persons  of  all  sorts  ;  neither  Jew  nor  Greek  can  be 
saved  by  any  other  mean.  In  the  l7th  verse,  he  advances  an  ar- 
gument for  proof  of  this  assertion,  which  is  plainly  this,  that  reve- 
lation, which  exhibits  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  the  only 
righteousness  that  can  please  God,  and  on  the  account  whereof  he 
accepts  and  justifies  sinnei-s  ;  and  which  exhibits  this  righteoiisnesSf 
not  upon  slender  or  conjectural  grounds,  but  from  faith,  that  is, 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  faithful  God,  who  can  neither  be  de- 
ceived nor  deceive  us,  proposes  this  righteousness  to  our  faith,  ag 
the  only  powerful  mean  of  salvation  :  but  it  is  the  gospel  only  that 
doth  reveal  this  righteousness  of  God  from  faith,  or  upon  the 
credit  of  divine  testimony  unto  faith :  therefore  the  gospel  is  the 
only  powerful  m^an  of  God's  appointment. 

This  Is  plainly  the  apostle's  argument ;  and  if  we  consider  it, 
we  will  find  it  to  comprize  three  assertions  ;  1 .  That  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  revealed  in  the  gospel,  and  received  by  faith,  is  that, 
on  the  account  whereof,  sinners  are  accepted  with  and  justified  be- 
fore God.  This  is  one  branch  of  his  first  proposition,  which  he 
designs  to  explain  and  confirm  afterwards,  at  length.  Here  he  only 
confirms  it  by  hinting  a  proof  of  it  from  the  prophet  Habakkuk's 
words,  the  just  shall  live  by  failh,    that  is,    faith  receiving  the 


176  AN  INCtUIRY  INTO  THE 

Tigtheousness  of  God  revealed  in  the  promise,  is  the  foundation  of 
all  the  godlj,  their  hopes  of  pardon,  peace  with  God,  grace  to  sup- 
port under  trials,  and  a  merciful  deliverance  from  them.  As  it  is 
by  these  things  they  live  in  troublesome  times,  so  it  is  the  accept- 
ance of  this  righteousness,  that  gives  them  any  right  to  these  ad- 
vantages. 2.  His  first  proposition  implies  this  assertion,  that  this 
righteousness  of  God  revealed  in  the  gospel,  is  the  only  effectual 
mean  of  acceptance  M'itli  and  justification  before  God ;  or,  that 
there  is  no  other  way  wherein  any  of  the  children  of  men  may  ob- 
tain those  advantages,  save  this  way  of  accepting  by  faith  the 
righteousness  of  God,  upon  the  credit  or  faith  of  his  testimony  ; 
this  is  the  other  branch  of  his  first  proposition.  3.  The  apostle 
asserts  in  this  argument,  that  the  gospel  doth  reveal  this  righteous- 
ness of  God ;  on  which,  and  on  which  only,  acceptance  with  and 
justification  before  God  are  to  be  obtained,  from  faith  to  faith. — 
This  is  the  apostle's  assumption  or  second  proposition. 

The  apostle  having  hinted  for  the  present,  at  a  sufficient  proof  of 
the  first  of  these  assertions,  as  has  been  said,  passes  it.  He  lays* 
aside  likewise  the  third  of  these  assertions,  designing  to  clear  it 
afterwards,  and  addresses  himself  to  the  proof  of  the  second  in  the 
ensuing  discourse  from  chap.  i.  ver.  18.  to  chap.  iii.  ver.  20.  or 
thereabout. 

The  proposition  then  which  our  apostle  spends  the  whole  context 
under  consideration  in  proof  of,  is,  "  That  there  is  no  other  way 
whereby  a  sinner  can  obtain  justification  before,  or  acceptance  with 
God,  but  by  faith:"  Or  that  "  neither  Gentiles  nor  Jews  can  be 
justified  before  God  by  their  own  works." 

This  he  demonstrates,  First,  Against  the  Gentiles  in  particular, 
from  chap.  i.  ver.  18.  to  chap.  ii.  ver.  16.  according  lo  our  present 
supposition,  or  concession  of  his  adversaries.  Next,  he  proves  the 
same  in  particular  against  the  Jews,  chap.  ii.  to  ver.  8.  of  chap,  iii- 
And  from  thence  to  the  close  of  his  discourse  he  demonstrates  the 
same  in  general  against  all  mankird  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles. 

First,  Then,  he  demonstrates  against  the  Gentiles  in  particular, 
that  they  cannot  be  justified  before  God  by  the  works  they  may 
pretend  to  have  done  in  obedience  to  the  law  of  nature,  by  the 
ensuing  arguments,  which  we  shall  not  reduce  into  form ;  but  only 
propose  the  force  of  them,  by  laying  down  in  the  most  natural  and 
easy  order,  the  propositions  whereof  they  do  consist. 

1.  The  apostle  insinuates,  ver.  18.  that  the  Gentiles  had  some 
notions  of  truth  concerning  God,  and  the  worship  duo  to  him  from 
the  light  of  nature,  ver.  18.  though  they  imprisoned  them  :  and 
what  here  he  insinuates,  he  directly  proves  ver.  19,  20. 

2,  He  asserts,  that  they  did  not  walk  answerably  to  these  no- 
tices, but  detained  them  in  iinrighleousncss  ;  that  is,  they  sup- 
pressed, bore  them  dowj-",  and  would  not  aljow  them  that  directive 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       177 

power  over  their  practices  which  they  claimed  ;  but  in  opposition 
to  them  went  on  in  sin.  This  he  had  intimated  in  general,  ver.  18. 
and  he  proves  it,  ver.  21,  22,  23. 

3.  He  proves,  that  the  wrath  of  God,  is  revealed  from  Heaven, 
especially  by  instances  of  spiritual  plagues,  the  most  terrible  of 
all  judgments,  against  them  for  their  counteracting  those  notices  of 
truth.  This  he  also  intimated,  ver.  18.  and  proves  it,  ver.  24, 
25,  26. 

4.  He  shews,  that  the  Gentiles  being  thus,  by  the  just  judgment 
of  God,  given  up  and  left  to  themselves,  did  run  on  from  evil  to 
worse  in  all  sorts  of  abominations  ;  and  therefore  did  render  their 
own  condemnation  the  more  sure,  inevitable  and  intolerable.  This 
he  does  from  ver.  26  to  32. 

5.  To  confirm  this  further,  ver.  32.  he  shews  that  the  fact 
cannot  be  denied,  in  regard  that  they  both  practised  those  evils 
themselves,  and  made  themselves  guilty  by  their  virtual  approba- 
tion of  them  in  others  :  nor  could  it  be  excused,  since  Ihey  could 
not  but  know,  if  they  attended  to  the  light  of  nature,  that  sucli 
gross  abominations  are  worthy  of  death. 

6.  The  apostle  having  in  the  last  verse  of  chap.  i.  mentioned 
this  aggravation  of  their  sins,  that  they  were  against  knowledge, 
takes  occasion  thence  to  proceed  to  a  new  argument,  whereby  ho 
at  once  confirms  what  he  had  said  about  their  sinning  against  know- 
ledge, chap.  i.  ver.  32.  and  further  evinces  his  main  point,  that 
they  must  inevitably  be  condemned  by  a  new  argument,  which  he 
lays  down  in  the  ensuing  assertion,  either  expressed  or  insinuated. 

(1.)  He  takes  notice,  that  the  Gentiles,  if  he  speaks  of  them, 
do  themselves  practise  those  things,  which  they  judge  and  con- 
demn others  for. 

(2.)  He  takes  it  for  granted,  as  well  he  may,  that  he  who  con- 
demns any  practice  of  another,  doth  confess  that  that  practice  in 
itself  is  worthy  of  condemnation. 

(3.)  He  hereon  infers,  that  the  Gentiles  do  practise  those  things, 
which,  according  to  their  own  acknowledgment,  are  in  themselves 
worthy  of  condemnation.  Now  this  conclusion  directly  fixes  upon 
them  the  aggravation  mentioned  in  the  close  of  the  proceeding 
chapter,  viz.  That  they  know  the  things  they  do  to  be  worthy  of 
death.     And  this  sufficiently  clears  the  connection. 

(4.)  He  argues  again,  that  the  judgment  of  God  being  always 
according  to  truth,  he  will  certainly  condemn  all,  who  do  things 
that  in  truth  are  worthy  of  condemnation,  ver.  2. 

(5.)  Hereon  by  an  inevitable  consequence,  ver.  3.  he  con- 
cludes, that  God  will  certainly  condemn  the  Gentiles,  which  is  the 
main  point. 

(6.)  As  an  inference  from  the  whole,  he  concludes,  that  as  any 
prospect  of  escape  is  vain,  so  they  are  precluded  from  all  excuse. 


178  AN  Ii\aUlRY  ir^TO  THE 

or  shadow  of  ground  for  reclaiming  against  the  sentence  of  God, 
which,  by  their  own  acknowledgment,  proceeds  only  against  prac- 
tices, that  are  in  truth  worthy  of  condemnation. 

7.  The  apostle  having  thus  locked  them  up,  as  it  were,  under 
unavoidable  condemnation,  proceeds  ver.  4.  to  cut  off  their  retreat 
to  that,  M  herein  some  of  them  took  sanctuary.  They  concluded, 
that  God  who  did  forbear  them,  while  they  went  on  in  sin,  and  al- 
lowed them  to  share  so  deep  in  his  goodness,  would  not  punish 
them  so  severely.  To  cut  off  this  plea,^  the  apostle  first  taxes 
them  as  guilty  of  a  grievous  abuse  of  this  dispensation,  while  they 
drew  encouragement  from  it  to  go  on  in  sin.  2.  He  argues 
them  of  gross  ignorance  of  the  genuine  tendency  of  this  dealing  of 
God.  To  argue  thus,  "  God  spares  me  and  is  good  to  me,  there- 
ibre  I  may  safely  sin  against  him,  and  hope  for  his  impunity  in 
<:ommitting  known  sin^  against  him,"  is  mad  and  unreasonable. — 
Heason  would  say,  "  God  forbears  me  and  so  gives  me  time  ;  he 
adds  to  former  obligations  I  lay  under  to  obey  him  by  loading  me 
with  new  kindnesses,  therefore  I  should  be  the  more  studious  to 
please  him,  and  avoid  these  things  which  I  know  will  be  offensive 
to  him,  and  be  ashamed  for  former  offences."  This  by  the  way 
is  the  full  import  of  that  expression,  The  goodness  of  God  leading 
to  repentance.  But  of  this  more  anon.  3.  Hereon  ver.  5.  he 
infers  that  their  abuse  of  this  dispensation  and  their  not  returning 
to  obedience,  or  answering  the  obligations  laid  on  them  increases 
their  guilt,  and  so  lays  up  materials  for  an  additional  libel,  and  a 
more  highly  accented  punishment,  ver.  5. 

Having  thus  shortly  given  an  account  of  the  scope  and  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  I  shall  next  lay  down  a  few  short  observation? 
clearly  subversive  of  any  argument  that  can  be  drawn  from  them. 

(1.)  None  can  say,  that  the  persons,  who  were  under  this  dis- 
pensation did,  in  fact,  understand  it  to  import  a  call  to  repentance. 
The  apostle  accuses  them  of  ignorance  of  this,  and  of  abusing  it 
fay  drawing  encouragement  from  it,  that  they  should  escape  pun- 
ishment, though  they  went  on  in  sin. 

(2.)  It  is  plain  the  apostle's  scope  led  him  to  no  more,  bul  this, 
to  evince,  that  this  dispensation  afforded  them  no  ground  to  hope 
for  impunity,  no  encouragement  to  proceed  in  a  course  of  known 
sin,  that  it  did  aggravate  the  guilt  of  their  continuance  in  such  sins, 
ynd  enforce  the  obligations  they  otherwise  were  under  to  absti- 
nence from  them,  and  ihe  practice  of  neglected  duties.  This  is 
ii'.l  the  words  will  bear,  and  all  that  the  scope  requires. 

(0.)  The  apostle  is  proving,  as  we  have  clearly  evinced  above, 
that  the  persons,  with  whom  he  is  now  dealing,  without  recours«j 
to  the  gospel  revelation,  are  shut  up  from  all  access  to  justifica- 
tion before  God,  acceptance  with  him,  pardon  and  salvation  ;  ccj^ 
tainly  therefore  he   cannot  in  this  place  be  understood  to  intend 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      179 

that  these  persons  were  under  means  sufficient  to  lead  them  to 
t'hat  repentance,  upon  which  they  might  be  assured  of  forgiveness 
and  peace  with  God. 

(4.)  This  same  apostle  elsewhere  appropriates  the  call  to  re- 
pentance unto  the  gospel  revelation,  Acts  xvii.  30.  speaking  to 
the  Heathens  at  Athens,  he  says,  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God 
winked  at ;  but  noiv  commandetk  all  men  every  where  to  repent. — 
Here  it  is  plain,  that  men  left  to  the  light  of  nature,  are  left  witli- 
eut  this  call,  until  the  gospel  come  and  give  this  invitation. 

[5.]  Wherefore  we  may  from  the  particular  scope  of  this  verse, 
the  general  scope  of  the  apostle's  discourse,  and  his  plain  declara- 
tions upon  other  occasions,  conclude,  1.  That  the  repentance  he 
here  intends,  is  not  that  repentance  to  which  the  promise  of  par- 
don is  in  the  gospel  annexed ;  but  only  an  abstinence  from  these 
evil,  which  their  consciences  condemn  them  for,  and  the  return 
to  some  sort  of  performance  of  the  material  part  of  known,  but 
deserted  duty.  Frequent  mention  is  made  of  such  a  repentance 
in  scripture  ;  but  no  where  is  pardon  promised  upon  it.  2.  This 
leading  imports  no  more,  but  that  the  dispensation  we  speak  of  dis- 
covers this  return  to  be  duty,  and  gives  space  or  time  for  it. 

[6.]  To  confirm  what  has  been  now  said,  it  is  to  be  observe<3, 
that  our  apostle  acquaints,  that  this  forbearance  and  goodness  is  ex- 
ercised towards  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction,  Rona.  ix. 
22.  which  sufficiently  intimates  that  this  dispensation  of  itself 
gives  no  assurance  of  pardon  to  these  who  are  under  it,  but  is  con 
sistent  with  a  fixed  purpose  of  punishing  them.  Vet  without  thi«5 
assurance,  it  is  impossible  there  should  ever  be  any  call  to  repen 
tance,  that  can  be  available  to  any  of  mankind,  or  answer  the  hy- 
pothesis of  those  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

8.  In  the  close  of  ver.  5.  the  apostle  introduces  a  discourse  of 
the  last  judgment  for  two  ends  :  First,  To  cut  off  those  abusers  of 
God's  goodness  from  all  hopes  of  escape.  He  has  before  shewed 
that  they  have  stored  up  sins,  the  causes  of  wrath  ;  and  here  he 
shews  there  is  a  judgment  designed,  wherein  they  will  reap  as  they 
have  sown.  Thus  the  words  following  are  a  confirmation  of  the 
foregoing  argument,  and  enforce  the  apostle's  main  scope.  Secondly, 
He  does  it  for  clearing  the  righteousness  of  God  from  any  impu- 
tation that  the  dispensation  he  had  been  speaking  of,  viz.  his  for- 
bearance and  goodness  towards  sinners,  might  tempt  blind  men  to 
throw  upon  it :  and  this  he  does  by  shewing  that  this  is  not  the 
time  of  retribution,  but  that  there  is  an  open  and  solemn  distribu- 
tion designed,  wherein  God  will  fully  clear  his  righteousness.  To 
these  two  ends  is  this  whole  account  of  the  last  judgment  suited. 
He  tells  them  that  there  Is  a  day  of  wrath  and  of  the  revelation  of 
the  rigliteous  judgment  of  God.  While  he  speaks  of  the  revela- 
tion of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  he  tacitly  grants  that  by 


180  AN  INdUIRY  INTO  THE 

this  dispensation  of  forbearance,  the  righteousness  of  God's  judg- 
ment is  some  way  clouded  or  under  a  veil:  but  withall  he  intimates 
that  there  is  a  definite  time,  a  dai/  fixed  for  its  manifestation  ;  and 
that  this  day  will  prove  a  day  of  wrath,  that  is,  a  day  wherein  the 
vindictive  justice  of  God  will  signally  manifest  itself,  in  punishing 
such  sinners,  as  they  were  with  whom  he  deals.  In  short  he  ac- 
quaints them,  that  the  design  of  this  day  is  to  reveal  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God,  that  is,  to  manifest  to  the  conviction  of  angels 
and  men,  the  righteousness  of  God's  proceedings  toward  the  chil- 
dren of  men,  particularly  as  to  rewards  and  punishments.  It  Avill 
be  righteous,  and  therefore  such  sinners  as  they  shall  not  escape. 
It  will  be  revealed  to  be  such ;  and  so  all  ground  of  calumny  will  be 
taken  away.  To  clear  this,  he  gives  an  account  of  the  concern- 
ments of  that  judgment,  in  so  far  as  it  is  to  his  purpose  ;  wherein, 

(1.)  He  teaches,  that  there  will  be  an  open  retribution  of  re- 
wards and  punishments,  God  will  render,  &c. 

(2.)  He  shews  that  God  will  proceed  in  this  retribution  upon 
open  and  incontestible  evidence.  He  will  render  according  to 
works.  The  persons  who  are  to  be  punished  shall,  to  the  con- 
viction of  on-lookers,  be  convicted  by  their  works  of  impiety  ;  and 
the  piety  of  those  to  whom  the  rewards  are  given,  shall  in  like  man- 
ner be  cleared. 

(3.)  He  acquaints  them,  that  the  distribution  shall  be  suitable 
to  the  character  of  the  persons,  the  nature  and  quality  of  their 
works.  He  will  render  according  to  their  works  ;  that  is  evil  to 
the  evil  ;  good  io  the  good.  This  is  all  that  is  intended  by  xartt 
secundum,  or  according :  the  meaning  is  not  that  he  will  render 
according  to  the  merit  of  their  works.  For  though  I  own  that 
God  will  pimish  according  to  the  just  demerit  of  sin ;  yet  that  is 
not  intended  here  by  this  phrase  according  to  works  :  for  the  word 
m  its  proper  signification  intimates,  not  strict  or  universal  propor- 
tion betwixt  the  things  connected  by  it ;  much  less  doth  it  parti- 
cularly import,  that  the  one  is  the  meritorious  cause  of  the  other ; 
but  the  word  is,  in  all  languages,  commonly  taken  in  a  more  lax 
signification,  to  denote  any  suitableness  betwixt  the  things  con- 
nected by  it.  So  our  Lord  says  to  the  blind  men,  Matth.  xix. 
29.  According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto  you.  Who  will  say  that 
any  faith,  but  especially  such  a  lame  one  as  we  have  reason  to 
think  they  had,  did  merit  that  miraculous  cure  ;  or  that  it  was 
every  v;ay  suitable  unto  it  ?  Since  then  the  ivord  of  itself  does 
not  import  this,  it  cannot  be  taken  so  here,  unless  either  other 
viCxiptures  determine  us  to  this  sense,  or  something  in  the  context 
fix  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  it.  To  take  it  in  this  sense  as  to  re- 
wards, is  ^  o  far  from  having  any  countenance  from  other  scriptures, 
that  it  is  directly  contrary  to  the  whole  current  of  them.  And 
when  the  vrojd  is  taken  in  this  sei'£e.  then  the  scriptures  plairlj'' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.         181 

tell  us  that  we  are  not  saved  or  rewarded  hy  or  according  to  our 
Tfiorks  of  righteoiisnesSf  but  according  to  his  mercy  through  Jesus 
Christ,  Tit^  iii.  5,  6.  Nor  is  there  auy  thing  in  the  text  or  con- 
text to  incline  us  to  take  it  in  this  sense,  but  much  on  the  contrary 
to  demonstrate  that  this  is  not  the  meaning,  at  least  with  respect  to 
rewards :  for  to  say,  that  the  reward  shall  be  given  us  according 
to  our  works,  that  is,  for  our  works,  as  meritorious  of  it,  flatly 
contradicts  the  apostle's  scope,  which  is  to  prove,  that  all  mankind, 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  do  by  their  works  merit  only  condemnation,  and 
that  none  can  expect  upon  them  absolution,  much  less  reward. — 
Besides,  the  HX)rks  here  principally  intended  are  not  all  our  works, 
nor  these,  which  if  any  had,  would  have  the  fairest  pretence  to 
merit,  viz.  the  inward  actings  of  grace,  faith,  love,  &c.  but  out- 
ward works  that  are  evidences  of  the  inward  temper  and  frame  of 
the  actors.  This  is  evident  from  the  word  itself,  from  the 
particular  instances  elsewhere  condescended  upon,  M'hen  the 
last  judgment  is  spoken  of,  and  from  the  design  of  this  general 
judgment. 

(4.)  He  shews,  that  this  retribution  will  be  universal,  to  every 
one,  Src. 

(5.)  He  illustrates  further  the  righteousness  of  it,  ver.  7.  by 
characterizing  the  persons  who  are  to  be  rewarded,  they  are  such 
as  do  well,  that  is,  whose  actions  openly  speak  them  good,  and 
evidence  the  honesty  of  the  principle  whence  they  flow ;  they 
continue  in  well  doing,  their  walk  is  uniform  and  habitually  good  ; 
flowing  from  a  fixed  principle,  and  not  from  an  external  accidental 
cause  ;  they  continue  patiently  in  this  course,  in  oposition  to  all 
discouragements  :  nor  do  they  aim  at  worldly  advantage,  but  at 
that  glory,  honor  and  irnmortaliiy,  which  God  sets  before  them. — ^ 
None  but  they,  who  are  perfectly  such,  shall  have  a  reward,  if  it 
is  sought  for,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  works  : 
and  in  this  sense  not  a  few,  nor  they  obscure  interpreters,  do  take 
the  words  ;  as  if  the  apostle  had  said,  if  there  be  any  among  you, 
who  have  perfectly  obeyed,  ye  shall  be  rewarded  :  but  whereas,  I 
have  cleared  that  none  of  you  arc  such,  ye  are  cut  off  from  any 
expectation  of  reward.  But  if  the  sincerity  of  obedience  is  only 
intended,  then  the  meaning  is  that  God  will  of  his  grace,  according 
to  his  promise,  and  not  for  their  works,  give  the  reward  to  the 
sincerely  obedient ;  and  thereby  will  openly  evince  his  righteous- 
ness, in  dealing  with  them  exactly  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
covenant,  to  which  they  belong ;  so  that  no  person,  *vho  has  any 
just  claim  to  reward  founded  upon  either  covenant,  shall  want  it. 

(6.)  To  clear  the  glory  of  God's  kighteousness  further,  he  spe- 
cifies the  reward,  viz.  eternal  life,  a  reward  sufficient  to  compen- 
sate any  losses  they  have  been  at,  evidence  God's  love  to  holiness, 
and  his  regard  to  his  promise^. 


182  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

(7.)  He,  in  like  manner,  clears  the  matter  further,  by  giving  a 
clescription,  ver.  8.  of  the  persons,  who  are  to  be  condemned, 
which  evinces  the  apparent  righteousness  of  the  sentence  to  be 
passed  against  them.  They  are  such  against  whom  it  will  be  made 
evident,  that  they  have  been  contentious,  that  is,  that  they  have 
opposed  and  suppressed  the  truths  they  knew,  stifled  convictions, 
and  detained  them  in  unrighteousness  :  such  as  have  not  obeyed 
the  truth,  or  walked  up  to  their  knowledge,  but  have  obeyed  un- 
righteousness, following  the  inclinations  of  their  corrupt  hearts. 
As  if  the  apostle  had  said,  the  persons  who  are  to  be  rewarded 
are  of  a  character  that  ye'  can  lay  no  manner  of  claim  to,  but  your 
character  ia  perfectly  that  of  those  who  are  to  be  condemned. 

[8.]  He  specifies  tlie  punishment,  indignation  and  wrath. 

[9.]  To  fix  the  truth  and  importance  of  this  deeper  upon  their 
minds,  he  repeats  an<i  enlarges  upon  this  assertion,  ver.  9,  10. 
thereby  assuring  them  that  the  matter  is  infallibly  certain,  and  to 
give  a  further  evidence  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  he  adjects  a 
clause  and  repeats  it  twice  over,  viz.  first  to  the  Jew  and  also  to 
the  Gentile,  wherein  he  shews  the  impartialitj^  of  God's  proceed- 
ings. He  will  not  suffer  one  soul,,  who  has  any  just  claim  to  re- 
ward, to  go  unrewarded,  be  he  Jew  or  Gentile.  He  will  not  allow 
one  sinner,  to  whom  punishment  belongs,  to  escape  unpunished. 
The  Jews'  privilege  shall  not  save  them,  if  guilty,  but  judgment 
shall  begin  first  at  the  house  of  God  ;  nor  shall  the  bare  want  of 
privileges  prejudge  the  Gentiles. 

[10.]  To  confirm  this  he  adduces  an  argument  from  the  nature 
of  God,  ver.  1 1 .  viz.  that  with  him  there  is  no  respect  of  persorts, 
Ihat  is,  no  unjust  partiality  towards  persons,  upon  considerations, 
that  do  not  belong  unto  the  rule,  whereby  the  cause  is  to  be  tried. 

[11.]  To  strengthen  this  and  obviate  objections,  ver.  12.  he 
asserts,  that  God  will  proceed  impartially  in  judging  them  accord- 
ing to  the  most  unexceptionable  rule.  He  will  condemn  the  Jews 
for  their  transgressions  of  that  law,  which  he  gave  to  them.  He 
will  condemn  the  Gentiles,  not  for  the  transgression  of  the  written 
!aw  which  they  had  not,  but  for  their  sins  against  the  law  of  na- 
ture which  they  had.  And  so  neither  of  them  shall  have  ground 
to  except  against  the  rule,  according  to  which  God  proceeds  with 
them. 

[12.]  Hence  he  takes  occasion,  ver.  13.  to  repel  an  objection  or 
plea  of  the  Jews,  who  might  fancy  that  they  should  not  be  pun- 
ished or  perish,  to  whom  God  bad  given  the  privilege  of  the  writ- 
ten law.  To  cut  of  this  plea  he  tells  them,  that  where  persons 
expect  justification  by  the  law,  it  is  not  the  knowledge  o(  the  law, 
or  hearing  of  it,  but  obedience  to  it  that  will  be  sustained.  Here 
be  does  not  suppose  that  any  shall  be  justified  by  doing  the  lam  i, 
nay,  he  j;rove:5  the  contrary.     It  is  manifest'y  Ym  design,  in  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      183 

whole  tliscourse^  to  do  so  :  but  he  shews  that  the  plea  of  the  Jews, 
that  they  had  the  law,  is  insufficient  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  be 
it  granted,  that  justification  is  to  be  had  by  the  la^  j  yet  even 
upon  that  supposition,  ye  have  no  title  to  it,  unless  ye  perfectly 
obey  it.  The  law  pleads  for  none,  but  those  who  do  so.  And 
since  none  of  you  do  thus  obey  it,  as  shall  be  evhiced  anon,  yc 
must  perish,  as  I  said,  ver.  1 2. 

[13.]  Whereas  the  Gentiles  might  plead,  it  would  be  hard  treat- 
ment if  they  should  be  condemned^  since  they  were  without  the 
law  ,-  he  demonstrates  that  they  could  not  except  against  their  own 
condemnation  upon  this  ground,  because  although  they  wanted  the 
written  law,  yet  they  have  another  law,  viz.  that  of  nature  ;  for 
the  breaches  of  which  they  might  justly  be  condemned.  That 
they  had  such  a  law  he  proves  against  them,  ver.  14.  15.  First y 
From  their  practice  :  he  tells  them  that  by  the  guidance  of  mere 
nature  they  did  the  works  of  the  Ian\  that  is,  they  performed  the 
material  part  of  some  of  the  duties  which  the  law  enjoins,  and 
thereby  evidenced  acquaintance  with  the  law,  or  as  he  words  it, 
iheT/  shew  the  work  of  the  law  wriUenin  their  hearts,  that  is,  the 
remainders  of  tlieir  natural  light,  or  reason,  performs  tlie  work  of 
the  law  commanding  duty,  and  forbidding  sin.  Secondli/,  He 
proves  that  they  have  such  a  law  from  the  working  of  their  con- 
science. He  whose  conscience  accuses  him  for  not  doing  some 
things,  and  approves  him  for  doing  other  things,  knows  that  lie  was 
obliged  to  do  the  one  and  omit  the  other,  and  consequently  has 
line  knowledge  of  the  law.  This  is  the  apostle's  scope,  ver.  14. 
i.;.  So  that  for,  in  tl>e  beginning  of  ver.  14.  refers  to  and  ren- 
liers  a  reason  of  the  first  clause  of  ver.  12.  that  they  who  had 
sinned  without  law,  viz.  the  written  law,  shall  perish  without  law, 
that  is,  not  for  violating  the  written  law,  Avhich  they  had  not. 

[14.]  Having  removed  these  objection^';,  he  concludes  his  ac- 
count of  the  last  judgment,  ver.  IB.  wherein  he  gives  them  an  ac- 
count, Is/,  To  whom  it  belongs  originally  to  judge,  it  is  God. 
'2dli/,  Who  the  person  is  to  whom  the  visible  administration  is 
committed,  it  is  Jesus  Christ.  3<////,  What  the  matter  of  that 
judgment  is,  or  what  vrill  be  judged,  it  is  the  secrets  of  hearts.  Al- 
though works  will  be  insisted  upon  as  evidences  for  the  couvictioir 
ttf  on-lookers,  of  the  righteousness  of  God  in  his  distribution  of 
rewards  and  punishments  ;  yet  the  secrets  of  men  will  also  be  laid 
open,  for  the  further  confusion  of  sinners,  and  justification  of  the 
severity  of  God  against  them. 

Secondlf/,  Now  the  apostle  having  proven,  that  the  Gentiles  are 
all  under  condemnation,  and  so  cannot  be  justified  by  any  works 
Ihey  can  do  ;  and  having  likewise  removed  some  exceptbns  of 
the  Jews  that  fell  in  his  >vay,^  he  proceeds  next  directly  to  prove 


1S4  AlV  maUlRY  INTO  THE 

the  same  against  the  Jews  in  particular,  and  answers  their  objec- 
tions from  chap,  ii-  ver.  17.  to  chap.  iii.  ver.  8.  inclusive. 

To  prove  this  charge  against  the  Jews,  he  makes  use  only  of' 
one  argument,  which  yet  is  capable  of  bearing  the  weight  of  many 
conclusions  or  inferences.  To  understand  this,  we  must  take  no- 
tice, that  the  apostle  is  dealing  here  with  the  Jews,  who  sought  to 
be  justified  by  works.     And, 

1.  By  way  of  Concession,  he  grants  them  several  privileges 
above  the  Gentiles  from  ver.  17.  to  ver.  20.  inclusive,  viz.  That 
they  were  called  Jews  ;  that  they  had  the  law,  on  which  they 
rested  and  pretended  some  peculiar  interest  in  God,  as  being  eX" 
ternally  in  covenant  with  him,  ver.  17.  of  which  they  boasted; 
that  they  had  some  knowledge  of  the  law,  and  pretended  them- 
selves capable  of  guiding  others.  This  he  grants  them  in  a  varie- 
ty of  expressions,  ver.  18,  19,  20.  By  which  the  apostle  secret- 
ly taxes  their  vanity,  and  insinuates,  that  whatever  they  had  in 
point  of  privilege,  they  abused  it. 

2.  The  apostle  charges  them  with  a  practical  contradiction  to 
this  their  knowledge,  and  this  he  makes  good  against  them,  par- 
ticularly against  their  highest  pretenders,  their  teachers,  I.  By 
Condescending  on  several  instances,  wherein  they  were  guilty  and 
appealing  to  their  consciences  for  the  truth  of  them,  ver.  22,  23. 
which  I  shall  not  insist  in  explaining.  2.  He  proves  it  further 
by  a  testimony  of  scripture,  ver.  24.  wherein  God  complains,  that 
their  provocations  were  such,  as  tempted  the  Gentiles  to  blas- 
pheme his  name. 

This  is  the  argument,  the  conclusion  he  leaves  to  themselves  to- 
draw.  And  indeed  it  will  bear  all  the  conclusions  formerly  laid 
down  against  the  Gentiles.  Whatever  their  knowledrce  was,  they 
were  not  doers,  but  breakers  of  the  /««',  and  so  could  not  be  jus- 
tified by  it,  ver»  13.  but  might  expect  to  perish  for  their  trans- 
gressions of  it,  according  to  ver.  12.  They  sinned  against  know- 
ledge, and  so  deserved  as  severe  resentments  as  the  Gentiles,  chap, 
i.  ver.  S2.  Tlicy  could  not  pretend  ignorance  ;  for  they  taught 
others  tiie  contrary,  and  so  were  without  excuse,  chap.  ii.  ver.  1. 

The  apostle  next  proceeds  to  answer  their  objections.  The 
first  whereof  is  brought  in,  ver.  25.  The  short  of  it  is  this,  the 
j-ws  pretended  they  had  circumcision,  the  seal  of  God's  cove- 
nant, and  so  claimed  the  privileges  of  it.  This  objection  is  not 
directly  proposed,  bat  the  answer  anticipating  it  is  introdcced  as  a 
conRrmation  or  reason  enforcing  the  conclusion  aimed  at,  viz. 
That  they  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  :  and  therefore  it  is, 
that  v/e  find  the  casual  particle  for  in  the  beginning  of  the  verse. 
This  mucjj  for  the  manner  wherein  the  objection  is  introduced. 
To  this  objection  the  r?po?tlc  answer:-'.. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      185 

1.  By  a  concession  ;  cimimcision  verihj  projitetk  if  thou  keep 
the  law,  that  is,  if  thou  perfectly  obey  the  commands,  then  thou 
niayest  in  justice  demand  the  privileges  of  the  covenant,  and 
plead  the  seal  of  it,  as  a  pledge  of  the  faithfulness  of  God  in  the 
promises. 

2.  He  answers  directly  by  shewinjr,  that  this  seal  signified  just 
nothing  as  to  iheir  claim  of  a  legal  righteousness,  because  they 
were  breakers  of  the  law.  But  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law, 
thi/  circumcision  is  made  uncircumrision.  The  short  of  the  mat- 
ter is  this  ;  this  seal  is  only  a  conditional  engagement  of  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  :  it  does  not  say,  thou  shalt  get  the  privileges 
whether  thou  perform  the  condition  or  not :  so  that  by  this  meons, 
if  the  condition  is  not  performed,  ye  have  nothing  to  ask,  and  ye 
are  as  remote  from  a  claim  to  the  reward,  as  they  who  want  the 
seal. 

3.  The  apostle,  to  illustrate  and  confirm  what  he  had  said  about 
the  unprofitableness  of  circumcision  in  case  of  transgression, 
shews,  that  a  Gentile  upon  supposition  that  it  were  possible,  obey- 
ing the  law,  but  Avanting  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  would  have  a 
better  title  to  the  privileges  promised,  than  a  Jew,  who  had  the 
seal,  but  wanted  the  obedience,  ver.  26.  Therefore  if  the  uncir- 
cumcision  keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  that  is,  if  a  Gentile 
should  yield  that  obedience  the  law  requires,  shall  not  his  iincir- 
ttnncision,  be  counted  for  circvmcision  ?  That  is,  shall  not  he, 
notwithstanding  he  wanteth  the  outward  sign  of  circumcision,  be 
allowed  to  plead  an  interest  in  the  blessings  promised  to  obedi- 
ence, and  to  insist  upon  the  faithfulness  of  God  for  the  perform.- 
ance  of  the  promises  made  to  the  obedient,  of  which  circumcision 
is  the  sign  ?  The  reason  of  this  is  plain,  circumcision  seals  the  per- 
formance of  the  promise  to  the  obedient  ;  the  Gentile  obeying  has 
that,  which  is  the  ground  whereon  the  faithfulness  of  God  is  en- 
gaged to  perform  the  promise,  viz.  obedience,  and  so  a  real  title  to 
the  thing  promised,  though  he  wants  the  outward  sign  ;  wherear 
the  disobeying  Jew  has  only  the  seal,  which  secures  nothing,  but 
upon  the  condition  of  that  obedience,  which  he  has  not  yielded. 
This  is  only  spoken  by  way  of  supposition,  not  as  if  any  of  the 
Gentiles  had  yielded  such  obedience  :  for  he  had  plainly  proven 
the  contrary  before.  The  apostle's  reason  is  this — circumcision  is 
an  engagement  for  the  performance  of  the  promise  to  the  obedient. 
The  disobedient  Jew  has  therefore  no  title  to  the  promise  ;  where- 
as the  Gentile  that  obeys  having  that  obedience  to  which  the  pro- 
mise is  made,  has  a  real  right  to  it,  and  so  might  expect  the  per- 
formance of  it,  as  if  he  liad  the  outward  seal. 

4.  To  clear  yet  further  the  unprofitableness  of  circumcision 
without  o))edience,  the  apostle,  upon  the  foresaid  supposition, 
shews,  that  the  Gentile  obeying  would  not  onlv  have  the  better  ti- 

24 


186  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

He  ;  but  his  obedience  would  contribute  to  clearing  the  justice  of 
God,  in  condemning  the  disobedient  Jew,  ver.  27  :  And  shall  not 
imcircumcision  which  is  by  nature,  if  it  fulfil  the  law,  judge  thee, 
who  hy  the  leiler  and  circumcision  dost  transgress  the  law,  that 
is,  if  a  Gentile  wanting  circumcision  and  the  security  thereby  giv- 
en, with  the  other  advantages  which  the  Jews  have,  discover  the 
inexcusableness  of  your  disobedience,  who  have  the  letter  and 
circiimcision,  or  the  written  law,  that  is,  who  have  a  clearer  rule 
of  duty  and  plainer  promise. 

5.  To  remove  entirely  the  foundation  of  this  objection,  the 
apostle  clears  the  real  design  of  circumcision,  and  the  character  of 
Ihe  person  to  whom  the  advantages  do  belong,  ver.  28,  29.  where- 
in he  shews  negatively,  that  the  Jew  to  whom  the  promises  do  be- 
long  is  not  every  one  Avho  belongs  to  that  nation,  or  is  outwardly  a 
Jew  ;  and  that  the  circumcision,  to  which  the  promises  are  ab- 
solutely made,  is  not  the  outward  circumcision,  which  is  in  the 
flesh,  ver.  28  ;  but  positively,  that  the  Jew,  to  whom  the 
promised  blessings  belong,  is  he  who  is  a  Jew  inwardly,  that  is, 
who  has  that  inward  frame  of  heart  which  God  requires  of  his 
people  ;  and  the  circumcision,  to  which  blessings  are  absolutely 
promised,  is  that  inward  renovation  of  heart  which  is  the  princi- 
ple of  the  obedience  required  by,  and  accepted  of  God,  ver.  29. 

This  objection  being  removed  out  of  the  way,  the  apostle  pro- 
ceeds to  answer  an  instance  against  what  he  has  now  said  in  the 
three  or  four  first  verses  of  the  3d  chap.  The  objection  is  pro- 
posed ver.  1.  and  is  in  short  this.  By  your  reasoning,  would  the 
Jews  say,  we  have  no  advantage  beyond  the  Gentiles,  and  cir- 
cumcision is  utterly  unprofitable.     To  this  he  answers, 

1.  By  denying  flatly  Avhat  is  asserted  in  the  objection,  declar- 
ing, notwithstanding  of  all  this,  the  Jews  had  every  way  the  ad- 
vantage. 

2.  Lest  this  should  appear  a  vain  assertion,  he  clears  it  by  an 
instance  of  the  highest  consequence,  viz.  that  they  had  the  oracles 
of  God,  which  the  Gentiles  wanted,  wherein  that  relief  against 
transgressions,  which  the  Gentiles  were  strangers  to,  is  revealed, 
as  he  expressly  teaches  afterwards,  ver,  21.  As  if  the  apostle 
had  said,  Though  ye  Jews  fail  of  obedience,  and  so  are  cut  oft' 
from  justification  by  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  yet  yc  have 
a  righteousness  revealed  to  you  in  the  law  and  the  prophets,  ver. 
21.  to  v*'hich  the  sinner  may  betake  himself  for  relief;  this  the 
Gentiles  who  want  the  law  and  the  prophets  know  nothing  of. 

3.  He  clear?,  that  this  is  a  great  advantage,  notwithstanding  that 
many  of  the  Jews  were  not  the  better  for  it,  ver.  3.  thus  at  once 
anticipating  an  objection  that  might  be  moved,  and  confirming 
what  he  had  said.  What  if  some  did  not  believe,  that  is,  though 
some  have  fallen  short  of  the  advantages  of  this  revelation,  shall 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      187 

\re  therefore  say  it  was  not  in  itself  a  privilege  ?  Nay,  it  is  in 
itself  a  privilege,  and  they  by  their  own  fault  in  not  believing, 
have  forfeited  the  advantages  of  it  to  themselves  only  ;  for  shall 
their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without  effect  ?  That  is,  as- 
suredly believers  will  not  be  the  worse  dealt  with  for  the  unbelief 
of  others  ;  but  they  will  obtain  the  advantages  of  the  promises. 

We  have  insisted  much  longer  upon  this  context  than  was  de- 
signed, but  we  hope  that  they  who  consider  that  the  apostle's  ar- 
guments and  his  whole  purposes,  are  directly  levelled  at  that 
which  is  the  main  scope  of  these  papers,  will  not  reckon  this  a 
faulty  digression.  And  besides,  we  shall  immediately  see  the  use- 
fulness of  this,  in  order  to  remove  the  foundation  of  a  great  many 
objections  drawn  from  this  context  by  Mi-.  Humfrey  :  some  of 
whose  notions  we  shall  consider  after  we  have  removed  one  ob- 
jection more,  and  it  is  this  : 

VII.  The  words  of  the  apostle  Paul  to  the  Athenians,  Acts 
xvii.  27.  are  made  use  of  for  this  purpose.  The  apostle  tells  them 
in  the  preceding  words,  that  the  God  whom  he  preached,  was  he 
who  made  the  ivorlds,  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men, 
for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the 
times  before  appointed,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  ;  that 
they  should  seek  the  Lord,  if  happily  they  might  feel  after 
him  and  find  him,  though  he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us  : 
for  in  him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  The  sum  of 
what  is  pleaded  from  this  testimony  amounts  to  this,  that  men  left 
to  the  light  of  nature  are  in  duty  bound  to  seek  the  Lord  ;  that 
God  is  not  so  far  from  them,  but  that  he  may  be  found  ;  and  that  if 
they  will  feel  after  him,  that  is,  trace  these  dark  discoveries  of 
him,  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  they  may  happily 
find  him. 

For  answer  to  this  we  say,  1 .  No  word  is  here  to  be  stretch-, 
fed  further  than  the  occasion  and  scope  of  the  apostle  requires  and 
allows.  2.  The  occasion  of  this  discourse  was,  that  Paul  being  at 
Athens,  saw  that  city  set  upon  the  worship  of  idols,  and  overlook- 
ed the  one  true  God,  which  moved  him  with  wrath,  and  gave  oc- 
casion to  this  discourse  ;  the  evident  scope  whereof  is  to  shew, 
that  they  were  to  blame,  that  they  overlooked  the  true  God,  and 
gave  that  worship  to  idols,  which  was  only  to  be  given  to  God. 
For  convincing  them  of  this,  3.  He  shews,  that  the  true  God,  by 
his  works  of  creation  and  providence  had  in  so  far  discovered 
himself,  that  if  by  these  works  they  sought  after  the  knowledge  of 
him,  they  might  find  him  so  far,  or  know  so  much,  as  to  under- 
stand that  he  alone  was  the  true  God,  to  whom  divine  worship  was 
due.  4.  He  owns,  that  indeed  these  discoveries  were  but  dark, 
to  wit,  in  comparison  of  the  discoveries  he  had  made  of  himself  in 
tlie  word  ;  which  h  sufficiently  intimated  by  that  expression  of 


188  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

ffeling  after  him,  they  might  find  him,  so  far  as  to  deliver  them 
from  that  gross  idolatry  and  neglect  of  him  they  were  involved  in. 
Here  is  all  that  the  scope  holds  out  :  but  he  does  not  say,  that 
they  might  find  him,  so  as  to  obtain  the  saving  knowledge  of  him 
by  these  works  of  providence  ;  but  on  the  contrary  he  tells  us,  that 
God  winked  at  the  times  of  ignorance,  that  is,  seemed  as  if  he  did 
not  notice  men,  and  in  his  holy  and  sovereign  justice  left  them  to 
find  by  their  own  experience,  which  by  any  means  they  had,  that 
they  could  not  arrive  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  God  ;  though 
they  might,  as  has  been  just  now  said,  have  gone  so  far  as  to  dis- 
entangle themselves  from  that  gross  idolatry  for  which  he  now  re- 
proves them.  He  does  not  say,  that  God  then  called  them  to 
saving  repentance,  gave  them  any  discovery  of  his  purpose  of 
mercy,  and  thereon  invited  them  to  peace  and  acceptance  :  but  on 
the  contrary,  he  tells,  that  now  he  calls  all  men  every  where  to  re- 
pent, ver.  30.  which  sufficiently  intimates  that  they  had  not  that 
call  before.  In  a  word,  it  is  not  that  seeking  or  finding  of  God,  or 
that  nearness  to  God  which  is  here  intended,  that  elsewhere  the 
scripture  speaks  of,  when  it  treats  about  men's  case  who  are  living 
under  the  gospel,  and  have  God  in  Christ  revealed,  and  the  gos- 
pel call  to  turn,  to  seek  after  and  find  him  to  their  own  salvation  ; 
as  the  scope  of  the  place  fully  clears.  Any  one  that  would  see 
this  place  fully  considered,  may  find  it  done  by  the  learned  Dr. 
Owen,  in  that  accurate,  though  short  digression  concerning  uni- 
versal grace,  inserted  in  his  Theolog.  Pantodap.  page  33.  There 
likewise  is  that  other  scripture,  Acts  xiv.  ver.  15,  16,  17.  largely 
considered.  On  which  I  shall  not  now  insist,  seeing  there  is  no- 
thing in  it  that  has  the  least  appearance  of  opposition  to  what  we 
have  asserted,  if  not  that  God  is  there  said,  not  to  have  left  him- 
self without  a  witness  among  the  nations,  in  as  much  as  he  did 
good  to  them,  gave  fruitful  seasons,  &c.  This  is  granted  :  but 
these  necessaries  of  life  are  no  v/itness  that  God  designed  for  them 
mercy  and  forgiveness,  as  has  been  made  appear  above,  and  as  the 
Spirit  of  God  tells  us  there  ;  for  God  suffered  them  to  walk  in 
their  own  way. 

Vni.  Some  alledge  that  there  is  a  law  of  grace  connatural  to 
man  in  his  lapsed  state,  and  that  in  substance  it  is  this,  That  God 
will  pardon  sinners  upon  their  repentance  :  and  they  tell  us,  that 
this  law  of  grace  is  as  much  written  in  the  heart  of  lapsed  man,  as 
the  law  of  nature  was  written  in  the  heart  of  innocent  man.  To 
this  purpose  speaks  Mr.  Humfrey  in  his  Peaceable  Disquisitions,* 
and  that  with  such  an  air  of  confidence,  as  might  make  one  expect 
better  proof  than  he  has  offered. 

*  Peace.  Disquls.  Chap.  4.  page  56. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-      189 

We  shall  just  now  examine  Mr.  Humfrey's  arguments.  As  to 
the  notion  itself  of  a  connatural  law  of  grace  written  in  the  hearts 
of  all  mankind  in  this  lapsed  condition,  we  look  upon  it  as  abso- 
lutely false.  It  contradicts  scripture,  reason  and  experience.  My 
design  excuseth  me  from  the  use  of  scripture  arguments.  Expe- 
rience I  need  not  insist  upon,  after  what  has  been  already  said. — 
Reason  will  not  allow  us  to  call  any  law  connatural  to  man,  save 
upon  one  of  these  three  accounts ;  either  because  we  are  born' 
with  actual  knowledge  of  it  ;  or,  because  it  lies  so  open  and  is  so 
suited  to  our  rational  faculties,  that  any  man,  who  has  the  use  of 
reason,  can  scarce  miss  thinking  of  it,  at  least,  refuse  his  assent  to 
it,  when  it  is  proposed  to  him ;  or,  finally,  because  it  is  nearly 
connected  with  notions  and  principles  that  are  self-evident,  and  is 
easily  deducible  from  them.  Now  this  discovery  of  mercy  to  sini 
ners  merely  upon  repentance  is  connatural  in  none  of  these  senses. 
I  know  no  truth  that  is  connatural  in  the  first  sense.  The  ingenious 
Mr.  Locke  has  said  enough  against  this.*  In  the  second  sense,  it 
is  not  connatural.  Who  will  tell  me,  that  this  is  a  self-evident 
proposition,  while  so  great  a  part  of  the  more  knowing  and  judi- 
cious part  of  mankind,  not  only  refuse  their  assent  to  it,  but  reject 
it  as  a  plain  untruth  ?  Yea,  I  doubt  if  any  that  understands  the 
case,  and  knows  nothing  of  the  satisfaction  of  Clirist,  will  give  his 
assent  to  it.  In  this  last  sense  it  is  not  connatural ;  for  if  it  were 
so,  it  were  easy  demonstrable  by  these  self-evident  principles,  to 
which  it  is  nearly  allied  :  which,  when  Mr.  Humfrey  shall  have 
demonstrated  from  these  principles,  or  any  other  for  him,  we  shall 
then  consider  it  ;  but  this  I  am  apprehensive  will  never  be  done. 
In  a  word,  all  these  truths,  which  with  any  tolerable  propriety  of 
speech  can  be  called  connatural,  if  they  are  not  self-evident,  are 
yet  such  as  admit  of  an  easy  demonstration.  And  it  is  foolish  to 
call  any  truth  connatural,  unless  it  is  such,  as  either  needs  no  proof, 
or  is  easily  demonstrable.  This  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  this 
notion. 

Before  we  consider  the  arguments  which  Mr.  Humfrey  advan^ 
ces  for  his  opinions,  I  shall  offer  to  the  reader  a  more  full  view  of 
it  in  his  own  words.  He  then  asserts,  "  that  there  is  a  connatu- 
"  ral  law  of  grace  written  in  the  heart  of  man,  that  is,  that  this 
"  law  of  lapsed  nature,  this  law  of  grace,  or  remedying  law,  is 
"  written  in  the  heart  of  man  in  regard  of  his  fallen  nature,  no  less 
**  than  the  law  of  pure  nature  itself  was.  The  law  of  nature, 
"  (says  he)  as  I  take  it,  is  the  dictates  of  right  reason,  declaring 
*'  to  us  our  duty  to  God,  to  ourselves  and  to  our  neighbors  :  and 
"  the  light  of  the  same  reason  will  dictate  to  us,  when  we  have 
"  failed  in  that  duty,  to  repent  and  turn  to  God,  with  trusting  to 

*  Essny  on  Human  Understand.  Book  1. 


190  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  his  mercy  and  pardon  if  we  do  so,  and  not  else.  We  do  find 
"  it  legible  in  our  hearts,  that  God  is  good  and  wisely  gracious  to 
"  consider  our  lost  estate,  and  pity  our  infirmities  and  necessary 
*'  frailty."*  After  he  has  told  us  of  a  threefold  promulgation  of 
this  law  of  grace  under  the  Patriarchs,  by  Moses  and  Christ,  which 
he  calls  three  editions  of  the  same  law  ;  he  subjoins,  "  Now  I  say, 
"  that  though  the  Heathen  be  not  under  (or  have  not)  this  law  of 
*'  grace,  in  the  third  and  last  setting  out,  or  in  the  state  under  the 
"  gospel ;  yet  they  are  under  it  (or  have  it)  in  the  state  of  the 
*'  ancients,  or  as  they  had  it  in  the  first  promulgation  ;  and  upon 
"  supposition  that  any  of  them  do,  according  to  the  light  they 
"  have,  live  up  in  sincerity  to  this  law,  I  dare  not  be  the  man 
"  that  shall  deny,  that  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
*'  [procuring  this  law  or  covenant  for  them,  as  for  us  and  all  the 
*'  world]  they  shall  be  saved  even  as  we."  And  a  little  befoie  he 
says,  "  These  characters  thus  engraven  in  the  heart  of  man,  is 
*'  the  same  law  of  grace  in  its  practical  contents,  which  is  more 
*'  largely  paraphrased  upon  in  the  scriptures." 

Surely  the  apostle  Paul  had  a  very  different  notion  of  the  state 
of  the  Heathen  world  from  this  gentleman,  when  he  tells  us  em- 
phatically, that  they  are  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise, 
that  they  are  without  God,  that  is,  without  the  saving  knowledge  of 
God  ;  for  another  sense  the  word  will  scarcely  bear :  that  they  are 
without  Christ,  without  hope,  afar  off,  &c.  But  it  is  not  my  de- 
sign to  offer  scripture  arguments  against  this  anti-scriptural  divinity. 
I  leave  this  to  others,  and  proceed  to  his  proofs  :  nor  shall  I  in  the 
consideration  of  them  take  notice  of  every  thing  that  might  be 
justly  quarrelled ;  but  only  hint  at  the  main  faults. 

1 .  He  reasons  to  this  effect  :  If  there  is  no  connatural  law  of 
grace  written  in  the  heart  of  man,  then  none  of  those  who  lived 
before  Moses  could  be  saved,  in  as  much  as  there  was  then  no 
other  law  by  which  they  could  be  saved.f  This  argument  he 
borrows  from  Suarez,  and  concludes  it  triumphantly  thus,  "  which 
"  is  a  truth  so  evident,  as  makes  the  proof  of  that  law  by  that 
reason  alone  to  be  good." 

But  for  all  this  commendation,  I  think  this  argument  has  a  dou- 
ble fault.  1.  It  proves  not  the  point,  viz.  that  there  is  a  law  of 
grace  written  in  the  heaits  of  all  men  by  nature ;  but  only  that 
there  was  such  a  law  written  in  their  hearts  that  were  saved.  This 
argument  is  built  upon  a  supposition  that  is  plainly  false,  viz.  that 
there  was  no  other  way  that  they  could  be  saved  but  by  the  law 
of  grace  written  in  their  hearts.  This,  I  say,  is  false ;  for  they 
were  saved  by  the  gospel  discovery  of  Christ  in  the  promise  re- 


Peace,  nisquis.  Chap.  4,  pag'e  5&,  ' 
iViiCC.  Disrjuis.  page  56. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      191 

vealed  to  them  by  God,  and  wherein  the  generality  of  the  Lord's 
people  were  more  fully  instructed  by  the  patriarchs,  who  were 
preachers  of  righteousness.  And  this  revelation  and  preaching 
was  to  them  instead  of  the  written  word.  Thus  we  see  this 
mighty  argument  proves  just  nothing. 

2.  He  reasons  from  Abraham's  pleading  with  God  on  behalf  of 
the  righteous  men  in  Sodom.  Here  he  thinks  it  evident,  that 
there  were  righteous  men.  He  proves,  that  there  were  none 
righteous  then,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  works, 
and  therefore  concludes,  that  tliese  righteous  persons  did  belong 
to,  and  were  dealt  with  according  to  the  covenant  of  grace.*  But 
now  what  does  all  this  prove  ?  Does  it  prove  that  these  men  were 
under  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  they  were  dealt  with  accord- 
ing to  the  tenor  of  it  ?  Well,  I  grant  it.  But  what  will  he  infer 
from  this,  that  therefore  all  the  world  were  under  the  covenant  of 
grace,  or  shall  be  dealt  with  according  to  its  tenor  ?  I  would  have 
thought  that  one  who  has  read  Suarez,  might  know  that  this  con- 
clusion will  not  follow.  If  there  had  been  any  righteous  men  in 
Sodom,  it  is  true  they  were  under  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  I 
add,  if  there  be  any  such  in  the  world,  they  are  under  it  ;  there- 
fore all  the  world  are  so?  Who  sees  not  that  this  will  not  follow? 
Again,  supposing  that  there  were  righteous  men  in  Sodom,  how 
will  Mr.  Humfrey  prove,  that  they  had  no  other  rule  of  their  life, 
or  ground  of  their  hope,  but  his  connatural  law  of  grace  ?  Why 
might  they  not  have  revelation  ?  Was  not  Abraham,  to  whom  God 
revealed  himself,  and  made  so  many  gracious  promises,  well  known 
to  some  in  Sodom  ?  Might  not  the  fame  of  such  a  person  so  near 
easily  reach  them  ?  Was  not  he  the  deliverer  of  Sodom  some 
eighteen  years  before,  and  did  not  Lot  his  friend,  who  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  revelations  made  to  Abraham,  live  in  Sodom  ? 

3.  Mr.  Humfrey  tells  us,  that  the  law  of  grace  was  in  Adam 
and  Noah's  time  published  to  all  the  world,  and  that  it  never  was 
repealed,  and  therefore  all  the  world  are  still  under  it,  and  so  in  a 
capacity  of  salvation.f 

But  1.  This,  were  it  granted,  will  not  prove  Mr.  Humfrey 's  conna- 
tural law  of  grace.  The  gospel  is  revealed  to  all  the  inhabitants  of 
England  ;  therefore  the  law  of  grace  is  written  in  their  hearts  :  he 
must  know  very  little  of  many  people  in  England,  who  will  admit 
the  consequence.  2.  Nor  will  it  prove,  that  all  the  world  are  un- 
der the  gospel  revelation,  even  in  its  first  edition,  to  use  Mr.  Hum- 
frey's  words.  Suppose  God  once  revealed  to  the  world,  when  it 
was  comprised  in  the  family  of  Noah,  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
80  all  this  little  world  had  the  external  revelation  :  will  IMr.  Hum- 


•  Peace.  Disquis.  paga  60. 
j  Ibid,  pag-e6?. 


192  AN  iNaUIRY  INTO  THE 

frey  hence  infer,  that  all  the  descendants  of  Noah,  after  so  long  a 
tract  of  time,  in  so  many  different  nations,  have  still  the  same  reve- 
lation ?  If  he  do,  the  consequence  is  nought.  It  is  as  sure  as  any 
thuig  can  be,  that  very  quickly  most  of  the  descendants  of  Noah 
lost  in  so  far  that  revelation,  or  at  least,  corrupted  it  with  their 
vain  additioiis  to  that  degree,  that  it  could  be  of  real  advantage  to  no 
man.  3.  Nor  will  what  Mr.  Humfrey  talks  of  his  repeal  help  out 
his  argument.  To  deprive  a  people  of  the  advantage  of  an  exter- 
nal revelation,  there  is  no  need  of  a  formal  repeal  by  a  published 
statute  ;  it  is  enough  that  men  by  their  wickedness  lose  all  remem- 
brance of  it,  and  suffer  it  to  fall  into  desuetude,  and  God  sees  not 
meet  to  renew  the  revelation  to  them  or  their  posterity. 

4.  Mr.  Humfrey  will  prove  his  point  by  a  syllogism,  and  it  runs 
thus,  The  doers  of  the  law  are  justified,  Rom.  ii.  ver.  13.  but  tjie 
Gentiles  are  doers  of  the  law;  ergo,  some  of  the  Gentiles  are  justi- 
fied before  God. 

The  conclusion  of  this  argument  is  the  direct  antithesis  of  that 
position,  which  the  apostle  makes  it  his  business  in  that  whole  con- 
text to  prove,  as  is  evident  from  the  account  already  given  of  that 
context.  This  is  pretty  bold.  But  let  us  see  how  he  proves  his 
minor.  This  he  pretends  to  do  from  Rom.  i.  14. where  it  is  said, 
that  the  Gentiles  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  and 
so  are  doers  of  the  law,  and  consequently  shall  be  justified. 

Well,  is  this  the  way  this  gentleman  interprets  scripture  upon 
other  occasions  ?  I  hope  not.  He  has  no  regard  to  the  scope  or 
design  of  the  apostle's  discourse.  All  that  the  apostle  says  here, 
is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  in  so  far  doers  of  the  law,  that  their  doing 
is  proof  that  they  have  some  knowledge  of  it.  The  persons  who 
here  are  said  to  be  doers  of  the  law,  are  the  very  same  persons  of 
whom  the  apostle  says,  ver.  12.  that  they  shall  perish  without  the 
law.  But  we  have  fully  cleared  this  context  before,  and  thither  I 
refer  the  reader. 

But  Mr.  Humfrey  reforms  his  argument,  and  makes  it  run  thus, 
He  who  sincerely  keeps  the  law,  shall  be  justified  according  to 
that  of  our  Lord,  keep  the  commandments  if  thou  wilt  enter  into 
eternal  life ;  and  that  of  the  apostle,  God.  will  render  eternal  life 
to  every  one  that  patiently  continues  in  well-doing;  but  argues  he, 
some  Gentiles  keep  the  law  sincerely:  and  therefore  it  is  according 
to  the  gospel,  which  requires  not  the  rigor,  but  accepts  of  sincere 
obedience. 

As  to  our  author's  major,  if  the  meaning  of  it  be,  that  wc  shall 
be  justified  before  God  for,  or  upon  our  sincere  obedience,  accord- 
ing to  the  gospel,  I  crave  leave  to  differ  from  him  ;  nor  will  the 
scriptures  adduced  by  him  prove  it  in  this  sense.  The  first  is  a 
reference  of  a  young  man  to  the  covenant  of  works,  who  was  not 
seeking  salvatioji,  but  eternal  life  by  doing,  iu  order  to  discover  to 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      193 

him  his  own  inability  and  his  need  of  Christ.  But  as  to  this 
commentators  may  be  consulted.  The  other  text  I  have  cleared 
above. 

His  minor  I  flatly  deny  :  well,  but  our  author  will  prove  it  by  a 
new  syllogism,  which  runs  thus.  He  who  yields  sucli  obedience  as 
the  Jews,  who  are  circumcised  in  heart,  do,  yields  that  sincere 
obedience,  upon  which  the  gospel  accepts  and  justifies  men  ;  but 
the  Gentiles,  or  some  of  them  yield  such  obedience. 

I  have  already  entered  my  dissent  against  the  last  clause  of  the 
major,  viz.  That  the  gospel  justifies  men  on  sincere  obedience  ; 
but  it  is  not  my  design  to  debate  the  point  of  justification  with  our 
author  at  this  time,  and  so  I  let  this  proposition  pass :  yet  I  again 
deny  the  minor,  which  our  author  essays  to  prove  thus,  That  some 
of  the  Gentiles  do  obey  in  that  sense,  in  which  the  Jews,  who  are 
circumcised  inwardly  or  in  heart,  do  obey :  this  he  pretends  to 
demonstrate  from  the  apostle's  words,  Rom.  ii.  26,  27.  Therefore 
if  the  undrcumcision  keep  the  righteousnsss  of  the  law,  Sec.  and 
shall  not  iincircumcision,  which  is  bij  nature,  if  it  fulfil  the  law. 

But  where  will  our  author  find  the  proof  of  his  minor  in  these 
words  ?  There  is  nothing  like  it,  unless  he  take  the  antecedent  of  a 
hypothetic  proposition,  for  a  plain  assertion.  But  this  antecedent 
needs  not  be  allowed  possible,  and  yet  the  apostle's  words  and  his 
assertion  would  hold  good,  and  all  that  he  aims  at  be  reached.  Eve- 
ry one  knows,  that  in  such  propositions,  it  is  only  the  connexion 
that  is  asserted.  As  for  the  meaning  of  the  text,  I  have  bhewed 
before  that  it  is  not  for  our  author's  purpose. 

5.  But  our  author  has  another  argument,  which  he  thinks  is 
clearer  than  all  the  rest,  and  professes  himself  perfectly  stricken 
with  the  evidence  of  it,  as  with  a  beam  of  light  never  to  be  with- 
stood, or  any  more  to  be  doubted.  Well  this  mighty  argument 
runs  thus,  "  If  this  was  the  chief  advantage  the  Jew  had  over  the 
'•  Gentile,  that  one  had  the  oracles  of  God,  and  the  other  had 
"  not,  then  was  there  not  this  diiference  between  them,  that  one 
"  is  only  in  a  state. of  nature,  and  the  other  in  a  state  of  grace  ; 
"  or  that  one  was  in  a  capacity,  and  the  other  under  an  impossi- 
*'  bility  of  salvation.  For  this  were  an  advantage  of  a  far  greater 
"  nature.  But  this  was  the  advantage,  Rom.  ili.  2.  Chiefly  be' 
"  cause  to  them  were  commilled  the  oracles  of  God;^^'^^  ergo  : 

I  must  confess,  that  I  am  not  stricken  with  so  much  evidence 
upon  the  proposal  of  this  argument,  as  it  seems  our  author  was. — 
To  me  this  argument  appears  a  plain  sophism.  That  the  Jev»'3  had 
the  oracles  of  God,  was  a  greater  advantage,  tlian  our  author  seems 
to  think  it.  And  while  the  apostle  calls  it  the  chief  advantage  of 
the  Jews  above  the  Gentiles,  tliat  they  had  the  oradcs  of  God, 

*  Peace.  Disq<iis.  page  63,  64. 


194  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

how  will  our  autJior  infer  from  this,  that  they  were  upon  an  equal 
footing  as  to  the  means  absolutely  necessary  for  salvation  ;  or  which 
is  the  same,  as  to  a  capacity  of  salvation  ;  for  certainly  he  that 
wants  the  jneans  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation  is  not  capable  of 
salvation,  in  that  sense,  which  belongs  to  our  purpose  ?  For  my 
part  I  would  draw  the  quite  contrary  conclusion  from  it ;  thus,  the 
Jews  had  this  privilege  above  the  Gentiles,  that  they  had  the  ora- 
cles of  God  entrusted  with  them,  Avherein  the  only  way  of  salva- 
tion is  revealed,  being  7vitnessed  to  hy  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
Rom.  iii.  21 .  and  therefore  had  access  to  salvation  :  whereas  on  the 
other  hand,  tlie  Gentiles  wanting  di%'ine  revelation,  which  alone 
can  discover  that  righteousness,  whereby  a  sinner  can  be  justified, 
did  want  the  means  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  and  so  were 
not  in  a  capacity  of  salvation.  Now  where  is  our  author's  boasted 
of  demonstration  ?  The  occasion  of  his  mistake  is  this,  he  once 
inadvertently  supposed,  that  these  two  advantages,  divine  revela- 
tion, and  access  of  salvation,  were  quite  different,  and  that  the  one 
was  not  Included  in  the  other.     But  of  this  enough. 

Mr.  Hurafrey,  I  know,  may  say,  they  had  the  law  of  grace  in 
their  hearts.  But  that  is  the  question.  Our  author  asserts  this ; 
but  he  does  so  without  proof.  We  have  all  this  while  been  seek- 
ing proof  of  this  :  hitherto  we  have  met  with  none.  We  have  met 
with  some  f;crlptures  interpreted  or  Avrested  into  a  sense  plainly 
inconsistent  Vvith  their  scope  and  intention,  without  any  regard  had 
to  the  context  and  drift  of  the  discourse,  which  is  no  safe  way  of 
managing  sci'iptures. 

Next,  he  insists  upon  the  stoiy  of  the  Ninevites'  repentance. — . 
They  were  Avithont  the  church  ;  it  ivas  a  law  of  grace  which  led 
them  to  repent.  But  had  not  the  Ninevites  divine  revelation  1  Did 
Xhej  not  repent  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah  ?  How  will  our  author 
prove  that  Jonah  never,  dropped  a  word,  that  there  was  a  possibili- 
ty of  stopping  the  progress  of  the  controversy  by  their  turning 
from  their  evil  courses  7  Did  not  Jonah  apprehend,  that  the  event 
would  be  a  farther  forbearance  ?  But  it  may  be  some  may  say,  Jonah 
had  no  mind  they  should  be  spared,  and  therefore  would  not  drop 
any  encouragement  :  but  we  know  that  it  was  not  of  choice  that 
lie  went  there  ;  and  as  he  Avent  there  in  obedience  to  God,  so  no 
doubt,  he  who  had  been  so  sharply  disciplined  for  disobedience,  would 
!<peak  what  tJie  Lord  commanded  him.  Again,  had  they  assur- 
fuice  of  pardon  or  eternal  salvation  upon  their  repentance  ?  Was  it 
gospel  repentance  ?  Or  did  it  reach  farther  than  a  forbearance  of 
temporal  Judgments  ? 

Well,  but  the  instance  of  Cornelius  seems  more  pat  to  his  pur- 
pose. He  was  a  Gentile,  was  accepted  of  God  ;  and  Peter  tells 
uf.,  that  in  every  nation  he  that  fears  God  and  works  righteousness, 
">•  accepted.     But  who  will  assure  me  that  Cornelius  was  a  stranger 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       m5 

to  the  scriptures  ?  Did  he  not  know  them  ?  Did  he  not  believe 
them  ?  How  could  that  be  ?  It  is  plain  he  was  a  proselyte  and  em- 
braced the  Jewish  religion,  as  to  its  substance,-and  that  he  did  be- 
lieve, since  he  pleased  God  and  was  accepted.  Now  we  know,  that 
without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  What  wanted  he 
then  ?  Why,  he  wanted  to  be  informed  that  the  Messiah  promised 
was  come,  and  that  Christ  Jesus  was  he.  As  to  what  the  apostle 
says  of  God's  acceptance  of  persons  of  all  nations^  any  one  that 
will  give  himself  the  trouble  of  considering  his  scope,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  place,  will  see,  that  it  is  nothing  else  but  a  com- 
ment upon  the  design  of  the  vision  he  got  to  instruct  him,  that  now 
God  was  to  admit  persons  of  all  nations,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews, 
to  a  participation  of  the  covenant  blessings. 

DIGRESSION. 

A  short  Digression  concerning  God^s  Government  of  the  Heathen 
World,  occasioned  bi/  the  foregoing  Objections,  wherein  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  account  for  the  Occurrences  that  have  the  most 
favorable  Aspect  to  them,  without  supposing  any  Intention  or 
Design  of  their  Salvation,  which  is,  adjected  as  an  Appendix  to 
the  Answers  given  to  Mr.  Humfrey's  Objections,  wherein  it  is 
made  evident,  that  there  is  no  need  to  suppose  the  Heathens  un- 
der a  Law  or  Government  of  Grace. 

If  I  should  here  stop,  the  persons  with  whom  I  have  to  do, 
might  possibly  allege,  that  the  main  strength  of  their  cause  re- 
mains untouched,  and  the  most  straitening  diflGculty  that  presses 
ours  is  not  noticed.  The  short  of  the  matter  is,  they  inquire.  What 
government  are  the  Heathen  world  under  ?  They  conceive  it  must 
be  allowed  a  government  of  grace,  since  they  are  not  dealt  by  ac- 
cording to  the  demerit  of  their  sins.  Possibly  we  might  propose 
some  questions  that  would  be  no  less  hard  to  satisfy,  by  those  who 
talk  of  an  xuiiversal  law  of  grace  :  but  this  would  not  remove  the 
difficulty,  though  it  might  embarrass  the  opposers  of  our  senti- 
ments. I  shall  therefore  open  my  mind  in  this  matter,  and  offer 
what  occurs  on  this  head.  If  I  mistake,  it  will  plead  somewhat 
for  me,  that  the  subject,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  not  usually  spoken  of 
by  others,  and  I  have  not  of  choice  meddled  with  it,  but  was  led 
to  it  by  my  subject,  that  requires  some  consideration  of  it.  If 
we  state  right  thoughts  in  this  matter,  it  will  give  light  to  many 
things,  that  otherwise  are  dark.  What  I  have  to  say,  I  shall  pro- 
pose in  the  subsequent  gradation. 

1.  Man  was  originally  made  under  a  law  that  is  holy,  good, 
righteous,  equal  and  just ;  this  law  required  of  all  subjected  to  it 
exact,  punctual  and  perfect  obedience ;  and  for  its  preservation  it 


19S  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

was  armed  with  a  penal  sanction,  answerable  to  the  high  and  tender 
regard,  which  the  infinitely  holy,  wise  and  great  God  had  for  the 
honor  of  that  law,  that  was  the  declaration  of  his  will,  bore  the 
impress  of  his  authority  and  representation  of  all  his  moral  excel- 
lencies. And  besides  all  this,  he  also  proposed  a  reward,  suitable 
to  his  wisdom  and  goodness,  for  which  his  faithfulness  became 
pledged.  It  is  not  needful  to  launch  out  in  proof  of  the  several 
branches  of  this  assertion.  That  man  was  made  under  a  law,  is 
questioned  by  none,  but  Atheists  ;  and  they  have  their  mouths 
suflSciently  stopped  of  old  and  late  by  many  persons  of  worth  and 
learning.  That  this  law  is  holy,  just  and  good,  cannot  without 
noti'ble  injury  to  the  Deity  be  denied.  That  it  exacted  perfect 
obedience,  is  so  evident,  that  no  person,  who  thinks  what  he  says, 
can  deny  it.  A  law  not  requiring  perfect  obedience,  to  its  own 
precepts,  is  a  law  not  requiring  Avhat  it  requires,  which  is  plain 
nonsense.  A  posterior  law  may  not  requii-e  perfect  obedience  to  a 
prior :  but  every  law  requires  perfect  obedience  to  itself.  That 
this  law  was  armed  with  a  penal  sanction  is  evident  from  the  wis- 
dom of  the  law-oiver,  who  could  not  enact  such  laws,  which  he 
knew  men  would  transgress,  without  providing  for  the  honor  of  his 
own  authority.  Besides,  if  there  is  no  penal  sanction,  it  is  not  to 
be  expected  that  laws  could  ever  reach  their  end,  especially  as 
things  have  always  stood  with  man.  But  were  all  those  proofs  given 
up,  the  effects  of  vindictive  justice  in  the  world,  Avlth  the  fears 
that  sinners  are  under,  lest  all  these  are  only  the  beginning  of  sor- 
rows, sufficiently  confirm  this  truth,  and  moreover  assure  us,  that 
it  is  such  a  penalty  as  suits  every  way  the  offence  in  its  nature  and 
aggravations.  But  I  know  none  of  those  things  will  be  questioned 
by  those,  whom  we  have  mainly  under  view  at  present. 

2.  All  the  children  of  men,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places  of  the 
world,  have  been  and  are  guilty  of  violations  of  this  law.  We 
have  heard  the  Deists  owning  this  before  ;  and  Christians  will  not 
deny  it.  Deists  would  have  thought  it  their  interest  to  deny  it :  but 
since,  it  is  unquestionable  that  the  generality  offend,  in  instances 
past  reckoning.  If  they  had  affirmed,  that  any  one  did,  in  no  in- 
stance offend,  they  might  have  been  required  to  make  good  their 
assertion  :  but  this  they  could  not  do.  They  durst  not  condescend. 
And  therefore  it  must  be  owned  that  the  best,  not  in  one  instance, 
but  in  many,  violate  this  law. 

3.  Upon  account  of  these  violations  of  his  holy  and  righteous 
law,  all  mankind,  every  individual,  and  evwy  generation  of  men, 
that  have  lived  in  the  world,  are  obnoxious  to  justice.  By  those 
sins  they  have  forfeited  any  claim  they  might  have  laid  to  the  re- 
v/ard  of  perfect  obedience,  and  .ire  liable  to  the  penalty  in  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  law.  And  God  might,  at  any  time,  have  righteously 
inflicted  it,  cither  upon  any  individna,!  or  any  whole  race  of  men. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     197 

1  determine  not  now  what  that  punishment  was.  Tliey  who  talk 
that  our  offences  are  small,  and  extenuated  thera,  seem  scarcely 
impressed  with  suitable  notions  of  God,  and  I  doubt  will  not  be 
sustained  judges  competent  of  the  qualities  of  offences  and  injuries 
done  to  his  honor.  But  whatever  the  punishment  is,  eternal,  or 
not,  which  I  dispute  not  now,  because  we  agree  about  it  with  those, 
whom  we  now  have  under  consideration,  it  is  certain  none  can 
prove  that  it  is  all  confined  to  time,  or  that  any  temporal  punish- 
ment is  sufficient  for  the  least  offence  that  is  committed  against 
God.  And  it  is  also  clear,  that,  upon  one's  sinning,  the  penalty 
might  be  presently  inflicted,  without  any  injustice,  provided  the 
penal  sanction  were  suitable  and  just  in  its  constitution,  as  of  ne- 
cessity it  must  be,  where  God  made  the  law  and  constituted  the 
punishment. 

4.  Although  God  righteously  might  have  cut  off  any  generation 
of  men,  and  swept  the  earth  clean  ;  yet  has  he  seen  meet  to  spare 
sinners,  even  multitudes  of  them,  for  a  long  time.  A  piece  of 
conduct  truly  astonishing !  Especially  it  would  appeal-  so,  if  we 
understood  how  much  God  hates  sin.  The  only  reason  why  the 
Heathen  world  hath  not  admired  it  more,  and  been  more  extensive 
in  their  inquiries  into  the  reasons  of  it,  is  because  they  had  but  very 
short  and  imperfect  notions  of  God's  holiness,  and  the  evil  of  sin. 
They  took  notice  of  God's  forbearance  of  some  notorious  offeu- 
ilers.  Some  of  them  stumbled  at  it,  and  some  of  them  en- 
deavored to  account  for  it.  But  the  wonder  of  God's  sparing  a 
world  full  of  sinners,  was  little  noticed,  and  though  they  had  ob- 
served it,  they  would  have  quickly  found  themselves  as  much  at 
a  loss  here,  as  any  where  else.  The  scriptures  have  not  gratified 
the  curiosity  of  men  with  such  a  full  account,  as  our  minds  would 
have  desired,  that  are  too  forward  to  question  him  particularly 
about  his  M'ays,  who  gives  an  account  of  none  of  his  matters  :  yet 
some  reasons  of  this  conduct  are  dropped  that  may  satisfy  the 
humble.  1.  God  made  a  covenant  with  Adam,  wherein  his  pos 
terity,  as  well  as  himself  were  concerned  and  included.  They  were 
to  be  gainers  or  losers  as  he  acquitted  himself  well  or  ill.  This 
transaction,  I  know,  is  denied  by  some  Christians.  I  shall  not 
dispute  the  matter  with  them :  others  have  done  it.  I  now  take 
it  for  granted.  And  if  they  will  not  suppose  it,  it  is  but  the  loss 
of  this  reason.  And  let  them  if  they  can  put  a  better  in  its  room. 
Upon  supposition,  that  there  was  such  a  transaction,  and  that  it 
was  just,  as  we  must  allow  all  to  be,  whereof  God  is  the  author,  it 
was  not  only  equal,  but  in  point  of  wisdom,  apparently  necessarj', 
or  at  least,  highly  suitable,  that  all  concerned  in  this  transaction 
should  be  brought  into  being,  to  reap  the  fruits  of  it.  But  this 
was  impossible  if  the  world  had  not  been  spared.  2.  God,  in 
sparing  the  world,  had  a  design  of  mercy  upon  some.     And  ma 


198  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

ny  of  them  were  to  proceed  from  some  of  the  worst  of  sinners. 
He  designed  to  save  some  in  all  ages,  and  in  most  places.  Their 
progenitors  must  therefore,  of  necessity,  be  kept  alive.  He  bears 
with  the  provoicing  carriage  of  evil  men  ;  because  out  of  their 
loins  he  intends  to  extract  others,  whom  he  will  form  for  the  glori/ 
of  his  grace.  3.  God  is  patient  toward  sinners,  to  manifest  the 
equity  of  his  future  justice  upon  them.  When  men  are  spared 
and  continue  in  sin,  the  pleas  of  infirmity  and  mistake  are  cut  off, 
and  they  are  convicted  of  malice.  They  are  silenced,  and  on- 
lookers satisfied,  that  severity  is  justly  exercised  on  them.  Qiuin- 
to,  Dei  magis  judicium  tardum  est,  tanto  niagis  justum.'^  As 
patience,  while  it  is  exercised,  is  the  silence  of  his  justice  ;  so 
when  it  is  abused,  it  silences  men's  complaints  against  his  justice. 
Other  reasons  of  this  conduct  we  might  glean  from  the  scriptures  : 
but  my  design  allows  me  not  to  insist.  Nor  indeed  do  they  de- 
scend so  low  as  to  satisfy  curious  wits.  Lo,  these  are  parts  of  his 
ways  and  aims,  hut  how  little  a  portion  is  heard,  that  is,  even  by 
revelation  known  of  him  ?  says  Job,  chap.  xxvi.  14. 

5.  The  world,  or  sinners  in  it,  are  spared,  not  by  a  proper  re- 
prieve, that  is,  a  delay  of  punishment,  after  the  offenders  are  ta- 
ken up,  questioned,  tried,  convicted,  and  solemnly  condemned  ; 
the  way,  manner  and  time  of  their  punishment  fixed,  by  a  judicial 
appHcation  of  the  general  threatening  of  the  law  in  this  particular 
case,  by  the  judge  competent,  and  the  sentence  plainly  intimated  ; 
a  delay  of  the  execution  after  this,  if  it  is  of  the  judge's  proper 
motion,  if  the  offender  is  not  imprisoned,  if  he  is  employed,  and  if 
favors  are  conferred  upon  him,  and  obedience  required  of  him, 
gives  hopes  of  impunity  and  escape  ;  and  if  the  persons  commit 
not  new  offences,  without,  at  least,  an  appearance  of  insincerity, 
they  are  very  seldom  condemned  upon  the  first  sentence :  but 
sinners  are  spared  by  a  forbearance,  or  wise  and  just  connivance, 
if  the  word  would  not  offend.  The  Governor  of  the  world  knows 
and  sees  the  carriage  of  sinners,  is  aware  of  their  sins,  and  keeps 
silence  for  a  time  ;  but  yet  keeps  an  eye  upon  them,  calls  them 
not  into  question,  puts  off  the  trial,  takes  them  not  up,  as  it  were, 
and  winks  at  them.  Now  all  this  may  be  justly  done  for  a  time  ; 
the  sinners  may  be  employed,  and  acts  of  bounty,  for  holy  and 
wise  ends,  may  be  conferred  on  them,  and  exercised  towards  them, 
and  that  without  the  least  injustice,  without  any  design  of  par- 
doning ;  as  the  sequel  of  this  discourse  will  more  fully  clear. 

6.  This  forbearance  of  God  is  wise,  just  and  holy  :  for  1 .  He 
is  the  only  competent  judge,  as  to  the  time  of  pimishing  offenders. 
It  cannot  be  made  appear,  that  he  may  not  thus  delay,  even  where 
he  has  no  thought  of  pardoning.     2.  It  implies  no  approbation  of 


The  slower  that  the  jtidgment  of  God  is,  it  is  the  more  just.' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      199 

the  faults  formerly  committed  or  those  they  may  commit,  during 
this  interval  of  time,  since  he  has  sufficiently  testified  against  them 
by  the  laws  he  has  made,  idiich  forbid  them  by  the  penalty  an- 
nexed to  those  laws,  and  by  examples  of  his  severity  upon  others, 
which  have  not  been  wanting  in  any  generation.  These  may  suffi- 
ciently acquit  him,  however  for  a  time  he  keeps  silent,  and  conceals, 
as  it  were,  his  knowledge  of  the  offences  of  some,  or  his  resent- 
ments against  them,  on  account  of  them.  3.  He  accomplishes 
purposes  worthy  of  him  ;  which  are  sufficient  to  justify  him  iu 
this  conduct,  while  he  keeps  silence,  and  carries  to  them  as  if  there 
were  no  offence,  or  lie  knew  none,  and  they  go  on  in  their  rebel- 
lion, or  secret  practices  against  his  law  and  government.  Impu- 
dent offenders  have  no  place  left,  either  for  denial  or  excuse  of  their 
crimes,  or  complaints  against  the  severity  of  his  resentments. 
Spectators  are  made  to  see  that  it  is  not  infirmity  or  mistake,  but 
fixed  alienation  or  enmity  that  is  so  sharply  punished.  He  serves 
himself  of  them,  and  makes  them,  though  they  mean  not  so,  carry 
on  the  designs  of  his  glory,  either  in  helping  or  trj^ing,  or  bringing 
into  being  persons,  whom  he  has  designs  of  mercy  upon.  And 
sure  iie  may  justly  do  this,  since  not  only  he  has  the  best  title  to 
their  obedience  ;  but  he  has  all  the  reason  and  right  in  the  world 
to  use  that  life,  while  he  spares  it,  for  what  purposes  he  pleases, 
Afhich  they  have  forfeited  to  justice.  Who  can  blame  him,  if 
sometimes  he  spares  secret  plotters,  and  lets  them  go  on  till  their 
plots  are  sufficiently  ripened  for  their  conviction,  and  others'  satis- 
faction. Nor  is  there  any  ground  to  quarrel,  if  he  deal  even  with 
the  worst,  as  equal  judges  do  with  the  mother,  guilty  of  some 
manifest  crime  ;  they  not  only  spare  and  delay  the  execution,  till 
the  ^hild  whom  they  design  mercy  to,  is  brought  forth  ;  but  do  not 
take  notice  of  her,  or  intimate  even  a  purpose  of  punishment,  till 
afterwards,  lest  the  child  should  suffer  by  the  mother's  despair  and 
grief.  4.  This  is  yet  more  remarkably  just  in  God,  who  can  on 
the  one  hand  secure  the  criminal,  so  that  justice  shall  not  suffer  by 
the  delay,  and  on  the  other,  that  the  criminal  shall  not  run  out  in- 
to those  impieties,  that  would  cross  the  ends,  endanger  the  safety, 
or  wrong  the  reputation  of  his  government,  with  those  who  are  ca- 
pable of  making  an  equal  estimate  of  things. 

7.  It  was  every  way  suitable  and  necessary  that  the  persons  thus 
spared,  should  be  continued  under  a  moral  government.  They 
were  not  to  be  ruled  by  mere  force  :  1 .  Because  they  are,  while  un- 
der such  a  forbearance,  capable  of  some  sort  of  a  moral  govern- 
ment. When  a  prince  deals  with  persons,  whom  he  knows  to  be 
on  treasonable  plots  against  this  government,  and  conceals  his  re- 
sentment, he  still  manages  them  as  subjects,  and  continues  them 
under  a  government  ;  nor  is  he  faulty  in  doing  so.  2.  They  are 
not,  while  under  such  a  forbearance,  capable  of  any  other  govern- 


200  AN  INCIUIRY  INTO  THE 

ment  ;  for  if  once  the  Ruler  of  the  world  begin  to  deal  in  d  way 
of  force  and  justice  with  them,  then  this  forbearance  is  at  an  end. 
3.  It  were  a  manifest  reproach  to  the  Governor  of  the  world,  if 
they  were  supposed  under  no  government  at  all.  Besides,  on  this 
supposition,  the  ends  of  his  forbearance  could  not  be  reached. 
And  moreover,  the  moral  dependence  of  creatures  on  their  Crea- 
tor, which  can  only  be  maintained  either  in  this  way,  or  by  putting 
them  under  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  would  be  dissolved, 
which  cannot  be  admitted. 

8.  Sinners  under  this  dispensation  are  still  under  the  law  of  cre^ 
ation  :  it  is  true  this  law  can  no  longer  be  the  means  of  conveying 
a  title  to  the  great  and  principal  reward ;  but  that  is  their  own 
fault,  and  not  the  governor's,  nor  the  laws'.  But  notwithstanding  of 
this,  they  are  still  under  it,  and  it  continues  the  instrument  of  God's 
government  over  them.  For  1.  The  ground  of  obedience  still 
continues,  although  some  of  the  motives,  yea,  the  principal  en- 
couragement, I  mean,  eternal  rewards,  are  forfeited.  The  obliga- 
tion to  obedience  can  never  otherwise  be  dissolved,  than  by  the  in- 
flicting of  a  capital  punishment,  which  puts  out  of  all  possibility  of 
yielding  any  obedience.  Some,  I  know  make  the  power  and  right 
of  obliging,  to  consist  merely  in  a  power  of  rewarding  and  punish- 
ing :  but  this  is  easily  convicted  of  falsehood  :  and  although  the 
learned  Mr.  Gastrcl  has  advanced  this,  in  his  sermons  at  Boyle's 
ijecture,  yet  we  have  no  reason  to  receive  it,  as  Beconsal  in  his 
treatise  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  and  othei-s  have  sufficiently  cleared. 
2.  This  law  is  sufficient  to  answer  the  designs  of  this  forbearance^ 
and  God's  rule  over  them  who  live  under  it  and  by  it.  It  has  not 
lost  its  directive  power ;  but  it  is  able  sufficiently  to  instruct,  at 
least  in  these  duties,  either  as  to  God,  ourselves  or  others,  that  are 
of  absolute  necessily  to  keep  some  order  and  decorum  in  the  world, 
carr}"  on  regularity,  the  propagation  of  mankind,  and  the  like.  It 
is  manifestly  sufficient  to  be  a  test  to  try  men's  willingness  to  obey, 
and  convince  men  of  wilfulness  in  their  rebellion  ;  and  to  be  a  stand- 
ing monument  of  God's  holiness  ;  yea,  it  continues  to  have  that 
force  upon  the  consciences  of  the  generality,  as  to  be  a  check  to 
keep  them  from  running  into  enormities  subversive  of  all  order 
and  society,  and  destructive  to  the  other  ends  of  God's  patience. 
'2.  Experience  fully  clears,  that  men  still  pay  regard  to  this  law» 
and  this  is  the  only  law  that  men  destitute  of  a  revelation  own. 

9.  While  God  saw  meet  to  continue  this  forbearance,  it  was  not 
necessary  nor  suitable,  that  he  slionld  plainly,  particularly  and  so- 
lemnly intimate  all  the  length  he  designed  to  carry  his  resentments 
asainst  offijuders.  1 .  There  v>'as  no  necessity  of  this  towards  the 
clearing  of  God's  holiness  ;  this  being  sufficiently  done  by  the  pro- 
nujlgatlou  of  the  law,  its  penalty,  and  many  particular  examples. 
i2.  This  would  bavo  undone  the   dispensation  whereof  we   have 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      201 

been  speaking.  3.  This  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  all  the  design^ 
of  it.  Men  had  been  driven  into  despair,  and  so  all  moral  go- 
vernment had  been  dissolved. 

10.  Yea,  it  was  consistent  with  his  holiness,  and  suitable  to  his 
wisdom,  to  permit  men  to  fall  into  sin,  very  great  sins,  and  for  a 
time  to  go  on  in  them.  God  can  neither  do  any  thing  that  is  un- 
worthy, nor  omit  any  thing  that  is  worthy  of  him,  of  a  moral  kind. 
And  it  is  certain  in  fact,  that  such  sins  and  enormities  he  has  per- 
mitted :  and  therefore,  however  strange  it  appears  to  us,  that  a 
holy  God,  who  could  have  restrained,  should  permit  those  things  ; 
yet  since  he,  who  can  do  no  evil,  has  done  it,  we  must  conclude 
this  altogether  consistent  with  his  holiness.  And  it  is  manifestly 
so  with  his  wisdom,  since  no  injury  is  done  to  his  holiness.  For  1 . 
By  this  means  sinners  give  full  proof,  what  a  height  their  enmity 
against  God  is  come  to.  2.  They  are  the  fitter  to  exercise  his 
own  people.  And  3.  They  are  riper  for  the  strokes  he  designs 
to  inflict  on  them. 

Notwithstanding  of  all  this,  it  was  meet  and  necessary  that  some 
offenders  should  be  remarkably  punished,  and  some  bounds  set  to 
offences ;  and  more  especially  those  offences  which  cross  the  de- 
signs of  God's  forbearance,  and  tend  to  dissolve  the  government 
and  order,  which  it  was  necessary  God  should  maintain  in  the 
world.  And  hence  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  not  the  greatest  sins, 
such  as  these  certainly  are,  which  immediately  strike  against  God, 
but  these  which  strike  against  order  and  government,  have  been 
most  remarkably  punished  in  all  ages,  as  might  be  made  appear  by 
innumerable  instances  of  the  remarkable  punishment  of  murders, 
treasons,  and  undutiftilness  to  parents.  This  is  congi-uous  to  jus- 
tice, not  only  on  the  abovementioned  account,  but  on  this,  that 
the  notices  concerning  these  last  sort  of  evils  are  much  more  clear 
in  most  instances,  than  those  which  respects  the  former. 

12.  It  is  every  way  suitable  to  the  wisdom,  sincerity  and  holi- 
ness of  God  ;  yea,  and  of  absolute  necessity  to  the  design  of  this  his 
forbearance,  that  he  exercise  bounty  in  lesser  things  ;  such  as  the 
good  things  of  this  life  are  :  and  that  he  vouchsafe  those  mental 
endowments  to  some  of  the  spared  sinners,  which  are  necessary 
toward  the  maintenance  of  that  government,  which  God  was  to 
keep  up  among  them  ;  such  are  civil  wisdom,  invention,  courage, 
&c.  These  he  may  give  without  the  least  intimation  of  any  de- 
sign of  special  mercy.  For  what  relation  have  these  things  to 
special  mercy,  which  are  heaped  in  abundance  on  the  worst  of  men. 
However,  that  it  was  fit  these  things  should  be  bestowed  upon 
some  in  this  case,  is  evident ;  because,  1 .  Eternal  rewards  are  now 
forfeited,  and  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  induce  to  obedi- 
ence if  this  had  not  been  done.  2.  Hereby  he  gives  a  witness  to  his 
own  goodness,  which  aggravates  ofl!*enceg  committed  against  him. 

26 


202  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

3.  Hereby  he  draws  on  men  to  obedience,  or  rather  to  do  those 
pieces  of  service,  which  are  in  their  own  nature,  such  as  he  allows 
and  requires,  although  they  design  not  his  service,  but  their  own 
pleasure  and  piofit.  4.  Hereby  he  clears  scores  with  sinners, 
while  he  suffers  not  what  is  even  but  pretended  service,  to  pass 
without  a  reward,  which  is  suflficient  to  shew  what  a  kind  rewarder 
he  would  have  been,  if  they  had  indeed  obeyed.  5.  Hereby  he 
cuts  off  all  excuse  for  their  continuance  in  disobedience.  6.  This 
conduct  gives  them  an  innocent  occasion  of  discovering  latent 
wickedness,  which  otherwise  they  would  have  had  no  access  to 
shew,  and  keeps  from  that  utter  despair  which  would  have  marred 
the  design  of  God's  forbearance. 

13.  These  vouchsafements  of  divine  bounty  lead  to  a  sort  of 
J  epeutance  ;  not  that  to  which  the  promise  of  pardon  is  joined  in 
the  gospel.  For  1 .  They  give  eminent  discoveries  of  the  good- 
ness of  that  God  whom  we  have  offended,  and  consequently  of  the 
folly  of  offending  him,  which  naturally  leads  to  sorrow  or  regret. 

2.  They  strengthen,  as  all  benefits  do,  the  original  obligation  to 
obedience.  3.  They  let  us  see,  that  obedience  is  not  altogether 
fruitless,  since  they  may  expect  less  severe  resentments  if  they 
return  ;  yea,  may  expect  some  share  in  this  bounty,  and  are  not 
under  an  impossibility  of  mercy,  for  any  thing  they  can  know. 

14.  After  all,  I  do  yet  see  no  reason  to  think,  that  they  who 
are  merely  under  such  a  dispensation  as  this,  which  I  take  to  be 
the  case  of  the  Heathen  world,  are  under  a  law  of  grace  ;  which 
assures,  that  upon  a  return  to  former  obedience,  sins  shall  be  en- 
tirely pardoned,  and  they  have  access  to  eternal  rewards.  I  grant  it 
highly  probable,  that  if  God  had  not  intended  grace  to  some,  such 
a  dispensation  had  never  been  granted.  I  admit,  that  this  dispensa- 
tion is  subservient  to  a  design  of  grace  upon  some.  I  further  al- 
low, that  there  is  no  absolute  impossibility  of  the  salvation  of  per- 
sons, however  deeply  guilty,  who  are  not  yet  under  the  penalty  : 
but  if  they  are  saved,  it  must  be  by  some  means  or  way  revealed 
by  God,  and  superadded  to  all  the  former,  which  I  can  never  see 
to  amount  to  any  law  of  grace,  since  it  is  manifest,  1 .  That  all 
this  may  be  exercised  toward  them  whom  God  in  the  end  designs 
everlastingly  to  punish.  He  exercises  nmch  long-suffering  to  the 
vessels  of  nrath  fitted  to  destruction.  2.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
whole  dispensation,  that  in  the  least  intimates  any  purpose  of  God 
to  pass  by  former  offences,  either  absolutely  or  upon  condition. 

3.  In  fact  it  has  never  been  found,  that  ever  this  dispensation  has 
led  any  one  to  that  sincere  repentance,  which  must  be  allowed  ne- 
cessary, in  order  to  pardon.  And,  I  dare  not  say,  that  God  ever 
did  appoint  means  for  such  an  end,  which  after  so  long  a  trial  should 
never  answer  it.  4.  All  whom  God  has  pardoned,  or  of  whom  we 
may  say,  that  he  has  brought  them  to   repentance,  have  been 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      203 

brought  by  other  means.  So  that  upon  the  whole,  I  see  no  gi'ound 
for  asserting  an  universal  law  of  grace. 

As  what  has  been  above  said,  takes  off  the  principal  pretence 
for  such  an  universal  law  of  grace,  which  some  seem  so  fond  of;  so 
if  any  such  is  asserted,  it  must  be  owned  to  be  a  law  of  a  very 
universal  tenor,  as  being  that  wherein  all  mankincH^e  concerned. 
It  must  be  allowed  a  law  designed  to  take  off  the  fwce  of  the  ori- 
ginal law,  concreated  with  our  nature,  that  necessarily  results  from 
the  nature  of  God  and  man,  and  their  natural  relation,  at  least  as 
to  one  instance,  I  mean  the  penal  sanction,  in  case  of  sin.  It  must 
be  allowed  to  be  a  law  not  merely  directive  as  to  duty,  but  design- 
ed to  tender  undeserved  favors  to  sinful  man.  Now  he  that  can 
think  a  few,  (or  call  them  many)  dubious  actions,  that  is,  actions 
capable  of  another,  yea,  contrary  construction,  a  sufficient  promul- 
gation of  such  a  law,  as  is  of  so  universal  extent,  as  derogates,  at 
least  in  one  instance,  of  so  great  moment,  from  a  law  so  firmly  and 
solemnly  established,  without  any  known  provision  for  its  honor, 
injured  by  so  many  sins;  and  finally  that  tenders  such  great  favors 
to  the  transgressors  of  it,  may  believe  what  he  pleases.  I  must 
own,  this  one  consideration  is  with  me  enough  to  sink  that  notion. 

But  to  conclude  this  whole  matter,  upon  which  we  have  dwelt 
so  long.  Upon  the  nicest  survey  of  occurrences  in  the  Heathen 
world,  I  can  see  nothing  that  savours  of  any  acquaintance  with 
that  forgiveness  that  is  with  God  ;  unless  it  is  that  generally  en- 
tertained notion  of  the  placability  of  their  deities.  This  notion, 
I  make  no  doubt,  had  its  rise  from  revelation^  and  was  continued 
by  tradition.  And  several  things  did  concur  to  the  preservation 
of  this,  while  other  notices  that  had  the  same  rise  were  lost  ;  the 
apparent  necessity  of  it  to  man  in  his  present  sinful  condition  ;  the 
suitableness  of  it  to  lay  a  foundation  for  that  worship,  to  which 
the  remaining  natural  notices  of  a  Deity  urged  them,  and  which 
was  of  indispensible  necessity  toward  the  support  of  human  go- 
vernment ;  the  darkness  and  blindness  of  men  as  to  the  exceeding 
sinfulness  of  sin  ;  the  holiness  of  God's  nature,  and  the  strong  in- 
clination all  men  have  to  be  favourable,  even  to  their  faults,  did 
contribute  not  a  little  toward  its  support.  Finally,  this  placability 
did  not  so  much  respect  the  one  true  God,  of  whom  they  had  very 
little  knowledge,  as  their  own  fictitious  deities,  which  they  put  in 
the  room  of  the  true  God.  And  it  is  obvious,  that  when  men 
took  upon  them  to  set  up  gods,  they  would  be  sure  to  frame  such 
as  might  agree  with  their  own  apprehensions,  and  pass  by  their 
faults  with  as  little  difficulty  as  they  committed  them.  Whatever 
there  is  as  to  this,  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  this  is  a  natural 
notice,  it  being  neither  self-evident,  nor  certainly  deducible  from 
principles  that  are  such. 


204  AN  INaUlR¥  INTO  THE 


CHAP.    XI. 

Proving  the  Insufficient/  of  Natmal  Religion  to  eradicale  our 
Inclinations  to  Sin,  or  to  subdue  its  Power. 

I  THINK  we  have  said  enough  to  demonstrate  the  insufficiency  of 
natural  religion,  to  satisfy  us  as  to  the  way  how  we  may  obtain 
the  removal  of  guilt  or  the  pardon  of  sin.  Let  us  now  see  whe- 
ther it  is  able  to  remove  the  corruption  of  nature,  and  subdue  or 
eradicate  our  inclinations  to  sin. 

Before  we  enter  directly  on  this,  it  will  not  be  impertinent,  if  it 
is  not  plainly  necessary,  that  we  say  somewhat  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  this  corruption.  We  shall  therefore  offer  the  few  follow- 
ing hints  concerning  it. 

It  is  most  certain,  that  man  has  corrupt  inclinations.  I  think 
this  will  scarce  be  denied  ;  since  it  is  beyond  contradiction  evi- 
dent, that  the  bulk  of  mankind  in  all  ages,  have  run  headlong  into 
those  courses  which  reason  condemns  as  contrary  to  the  law,  under 
which  we  are  made.  The  law  condemns,  reason  justifies  the  law, 
and  proclaims  those  courses  unworthy  of  us  ;  conscience  checks 
and  sometimes  torments,  and  yet  sinners  run  on.  Can  all  this  be 
without  corrupt  inclinations  swaying,  yea,  as  it  were,  forcibly 
driving  that  way  ?  Not  surely. 

2.  It  is  certain,  that  not  only  there  are  such  inclinations  in  man, 
but  that  they  are  exceedingly  strong  and  forcible.  Our  own  reason 
condemns  those  actions,  and  cries  shame  on  the  sinner's  conscience, 
presages  the  resentments  of  the  righteous  God,  the  evil  effects  of 
them  are  visible,  and  they  are  felt  to  be  destructive  to  our  health, 
luinous  to  our  reputation  and  estates,  inconsistent  with  our  inward 
peace  ;  yea,  in  a  few  instances,  human  law  provides  tenible  pun- 
ishments :  and  yet,  in  spite  of  all  these  strong  barriers,  we  are 
carried  down  with  the  stream :  nor  can  the  most  rational  consider- 
ations, from  interest,  honor  or  prudence,  stop  our  career.  Cer- 
tainly the  force  of  inclination,  that  carries  over  all  these,  must  be 
■great. 

3.  It  seems  plainly  natural  and  congenial  to  us.  I  shall  not 
nicely  inquire  in  what  sense  it  is  so.  I  am  far  from  thinking,  that 
our  natures  as  at  first  made,  were  created  with  it.  I  have  said 
enough  before  to  prove  this  impossible  :  but  I  mean,  that  as  our 
natures  now  are,  however  they  came  to  be  so,  it  is  an  inseparable 
appendage  of  them,  cleaves  to  them,  and  proceeds  not  merely 
from  custom,  and  is  not  acquired,  though  it  is  often  improved  by 
custom.  Now  this  seems  evident  from  many  things,  1.  The  uni- 
versality of  it.  All  men,  in  all  age?,  in  all  places,  and  in  all  cir- 
cumstances, have  such  vicious  inclinations.     I  do  not  say  that  eye- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      205 

ry  individual  is  proud,  ambitious,  covetous,  revengeful,  passionate 
and  lustful.     No,  but  every  one  has  some  one  or  other  of  these, 
or  the  like  breaking  out :  which  says  the  spring  is  within,  and  is 
strong ;  though  the  constitution  of  our  bodies,  the  climates  we  live 
under,  our  education  and  circumstances  of  life,  have  dammed  in 
some  of  them,  and  cut  out   channels  for  others  of  them.     Now  it 
is  plainly  unaccountable  how  all  men  should  be  thus  corrupt,  if  not 
naturally  so.     No  parallel  instance,  in   any  sort,   can  be  given, 
where  any  thing  not  natural  and  congenial,  at  least  as  to  its  prin- 
ciple and  inclination,  has  obtained  such  an  universal  sway.     2.  It 
waits  not  till  we  are  grown  and  framed  by  education,  custom,  en- 
gagement and  inventions  ;  but  makes  strong,  discernible,  and  sen- 
sible eruptions  in  infancy  and  childhood.     As  soon  as  we  are  ca- 
pable, and  very  oft,  while  one  would  think  us  scarcely  so,  by  rea- 
son of  age,  we  are  proud,  revengeful,   covetous.  Sec   which  says 
this  is  congenial.     3.  It  is  often  seen,  that  these  corruptions  break 
out  in  our  younger  years,  which  neither  education,  example,  circum- 
stances, nor  any  thing  else  but  a  corrupted  nature,  can  give  any  en- 
couragement to.     4.  Yea  more,  how  strong  are  these  inclination?, 
and  that  very  early,  which  are  discouraged,  opposed,  borne  down, 
and  have  all  outward  occasions  cut  off  from  them.     One  is  pas- 
sionate among  calm  people,  though  he  is  punished  for  it  and  sees  il 
not.     Another  is  ambitious  and  proud  among  sober  people,  in  mean 
circumstances,  where  there  is  no  example  to  excite  ambition,  no 
theatre  to  act  it  upon,  and  the  beginnings  are  curbed  by  precept, 
instruction,  reproof,  chastisements  and  example.     5.  Those  things 
are  evidently  interwoven  with,  and  strengthened  by  the  very  con- 
stitutions of  our  bodies,  and  climates  under  which  we  live.    Hence 
there  are  domestic  and  national  vices,  which  cleave  to  some  fami- 
lies and  nations.    6.  The  best,  the  most  sober,  and  freest  from  dis- 
cernible eruptions  of  corruption,  still  own  they  find   their  incli- 
nations strong,  and  driving  them  into  indiscernible   acts  corres- 
pondent to  them.     7.  They  who  deny  the  force  and  being  of 
these  inclinations,  and  who  pretend  that  the  will  of  man  is  able  to 
master  all  these,  yet  cannot  but  own,  that  there  are  such  inclina- 
tions ;  and  as  for  the  pretended  ability  of  the  will  to  conquer 
them,  they  give  the  least  proof  of  it  who  pretend  most  to  it :  for 
if  the  will  is  thus  able,  and  if,  as  they  pretend,  they  have  sufficient 
moral  arguments  which  persuade  to  it,  why  is  it  not  done  ?    ^Vhat 
stops  it  ?    8.  IJshall  only  further  offer  the  testimonies  of  some  few 
among  the  Heathens.  Tim(zus  the  Locrian,  who  lived  before  Plato, 
tells  us  in  his  discourses,  "  That  vitiosity  comes  from  our  parents 
"  and  first  principles,  rather  than  from  negligence  and  disorder  of 
public  manners  ;  because  we  never  part  from  those  actions  which 
lead  us  to  imitate  the  primitive  sins  of  our  parents."*  Plato  tells  us, 

•  Gak's  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  Part  4.  Lib.  1.  Cap.  4.  Par.  2. 


206  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

that,  "  In  times  past  the  divine  nature  flourished  in  men  ;  but  at 
"  length  it  mixed  with  mortal,  and  ivipmvivoi  v'*®-,  human  corrup- 
**  tions  prevailed  to  the  ruin  of  mankind :  and  from  this  source  there 
*'  followed  an  inundation  of  evils  on  men.  Hence  he  calls  corruption 
"  »»e-®-  Twy  x«7«  ^vFif,  the  natural  disease,  or  disease  of  nature,  be- 
"  cause  the  nature  of  mankind  is  greatly  degenerated  and  deprav- 
"  ed,  and  all  manner  of  disorders  infest  human  nature  :  and  men 
"  being  impotent,  are  torn  in  pieces  by  their  own  lusts,  as  by  so 
"  many  wild  horses.  Hence  Democritus  is  said  to  aflSrni  the  dis- 
"  eases  of  the  soul  to  be  so  great,  that  if  it  were  opened,  it  would 
"  appear  to  be  a  sepulchre  of  all  manner  of  evils."  Aristotle  tells 
us,  "  That  there  is  in  us  somewhat  naturally  repugnant  to  right 
"  reason,  7rs^vK<^  «i»7</3«toi»  m  Aoys."*  Seneca,  Epist.  50,  gives 
us  a  very  remarkable  account  of  his  thoughts  in  this  matter.  The 
whole  were  worthy  to  be  transcribed,  but  it  is  too  long.  I  shall 
translate  a  part  of  it.  "  Why  do  we  deceive  ourselves  ?  Our 
"  evil  is  not  from  without  ;  it  is  fixed  in  our  very  bowels.  Alibif 
"  All  sins  are  in  all  men,  but  all  do  not  appear  in  each  man  :  he 
"  that  hath  one  sin — hath  all.  We  say,  that  all  men  are  intem- 
"  perate,  avaricious,  luxurious,  malignant ;  not  that  these  sins  ap- 
"  pear  in  all ;  but  because  they  may  be,  yea,  are  in  all,  although 
"  latent.  A  man  may  be  guilty,  though  he  do  no  hurt.  Sins  are 
"  perfect  before  they  break  forth  into  effect."  It  is  worthy  of 
our  observation,  what  Mr.  Gale  tells  us,  after  he  has  quoted  these 
words,  viz.  that  Jansenius  breaks  forth  into  a  rapture  upon  hearing 
these  philosophers  philosophize  more  truly  about  the  corruption  of 
man's  nature,  than  Pelagians  and  others  of  late. 

But  the  Oracles  of  Reason  tell  us,  that  it  is  denied  "  that  the 
"  lapse  of  nature  is  universal,  because  some  through  the  course  of 
*'  their  lives,  have  proved  more  inclinable  or  prone  to  virtue  than 
"  to  vice."  I  have  spoken  to  this  before,  but  I  add,  1.  This  is 
not  enough,  that  they  are  more  prone  to  virtue  than  to  vice  :  for 
the  question  is.  Whether  they  have  inclinations  to  vice  ?  and  not, 
Whether  they  contrary  are  stronger  ?  2.  This  cannot  be  pretend- 
ed to  be  the  case  with  many.  Now,  since  the  question  is  about  a 
religion  sufficient  for  all  mankind,  if  any  of  them  have  such  a  dis- 
temper, and  natural  religion  provide  no  cure,  it  is  insufficient.  3. 
It  is  not.  Whether  there  are  men  that  have  been  prone  to  some 
virtues,  and  averse  from  some  vices,  possibly  scandalous  sins  ? 
But,  W  hether  there  have  been  men  inclined  to  no  sin,  prone  to 
allvirtue  ?  If  they  assert  such  a  one,  shew  us  the  man.  We  can- 
not believe  any  such,  since  all  we  know  are  otherwise,  till  we  see 
liim  produced.  4.  It  is  not  the  business  whether  men  have  done 
virtuous  acts  ordinaril}^,  that  is,  the  material  acts  of  virtue  :  for 


*  Arist.  Ethick,  Lib.  1.  Cap.  13.  t  "  Elsewhere." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        207 

corruption  may  run  freely  out  in  this  channel.  A  man  may  be 
ambitious,  proud,  and  live  among  persons,  with  whom  vice  is  de- 
cried, open  vice  I  mean,  and  therefore  affect  a  great  exactness  as 
to  morality.  This  is  good  :  but  this  is  all  but  a  sacrifice  to  ambi- 
tion. One  lust  is  the  principal  idol,  all  the  rest  are  sacrificed  to  it. 
Corruption  turns  not  troublesome,  and  is  pleased,  if  it  get  vent 
any  way.  A  strong  spring,  if  it  can  get  a  vent  under  ground, 
may  press  for  a  vent  above  ;  yet  it  will  easily  be  restrained  there. 

Now  this  being  the  case  plainly  with  man,  it  is  impossible  for 
him  to  reach  happiness,  while  this  corruption  remains  ;  nor  can  he 
be  sure  of  acceptance  with  God.  While  things  are  thus,  nature 
is  imperfect,  man  is  out  of  order,  reason,  the  nobler  part,  is  kept 
under,  and  passions,  the  brutal  part,  bear  the  sway.  This  is  more 
unseemly,  than  to  see  servanls  on  horses,  wkile  princes  walk  on 
foot.  There  is  continual  occasion  for  remorse,  checks,  challenges 
of  conscience,  and  fears  of  the  resentment  of  a  holy  God.  There 
can  be  no  firm  confidence  of  access  to  God,  or  near  fellowship 
with  him,  while  we  entertain  his  enemies  in  our  bosom  ;  nay,  have 
them  interwoven,  as  it  were,  with  our  natures. 

The  Deists  I  know  make  a  horrible  outcry  against  Christians, 
for  asserting  this  corruption  of  nature.  Herbert  in  his  book  de 
Veritate,  has  many  bitter  invectives  against  the  asserters  of  it ; 
and  yet,  overcome  with  the  evidence  of  truth,  he  is  obliged  fre- 
quently to  acknowledge  it  plainly  :  yea,  not  only  does  he  acknow- 
ledge it,  but  he  pleads  this  directly,  in  excuse  of  the  most  abomi- 
nable wickedness.  After  he  has  told  us,  that  the  temperament  or 
constitution  of  our  bodies  have  a  powerful  influence  to  sway  us  to 
some  sins,  he  subjoins  :  Quo  pado  hand  ita  levi  tiegotio  damnan- 
"  dos  existimo,  qui  ex  tiia<rvyx.f%Tioi,  aliqita  pntvaricantur.  Quern 
"  admodum  igitur  flagitii  hand  piste  argueris  lethargutn,  desi- 
"  dem,  ant  hi/dropicum,  bibacem  ;  ita  fortasse  neque  veneris,  aut 
"  Martis  (Bstro  percitum  modo  in  peccant ium  humorum  redun-. 
"  dantiam,  potius  quam  pravum  aliquem  habitum,  delictum  com- 
"  modo  rejici  possit.  Neque  tamen  me  hie  conscelerati  cujusvis 
"  patronum  sisto  ;  sed  in  id  solummodo  contendo,  ut  mitiori  sen- 
"  tentia  de  iis  statuamus,  qui  corporea,  brutali,  Sr  tantnm  nan  ne- 
"  cessaria  propensione  in  peccata  prolabuntur.''^^  Well,  here  is  a 

•  "  Therefore  I  think  that  those  are  «ot  so  easily  to  be  condemned  who 
"  sin  from  any  peculiarity  of  bodily  constitution.  As,  therefore,  one  could 
"  not  justly  blame  a  lethargic  person  for  being  lazy,  or  a  dropsical  person  for 
"  being  desirous  of  drink  ;  so,  perhaps,  we  ought  not  to  blame  any  one  that 
"  is  prompted  to  sin  by  the  sting  of  lust  or  anger,  provided  that  his  sin  may 
"  be  conveniently  eharged  to  the  redundancy  of  peccant  humours,  rather 
"  than  to  any  perverse  habit.  And  here  I  do  not  set  myself  up  as  the  advo- 
II  cate  of  every  wicked  man,  but  only  contend  for  this,  that  we  should  judge 
"  more  mildly  of  those  who  fall  into  sins,  from  »  corporeal,  brutal,  and  al- 
"  most  necessary  inclination." 


208  AN  INaumV  INTO  THE 

handsome  excuse  for  vice.  We  must  be  as  far  from  condemning 
liim,  who,  prompted  by  passion,  slays  and  murders,  or  hurried  on 
hj  hist,  commits  rapes  and  adulteries  ;  as  of  censuring  him  who  is 
sick  of  a  lethargy,  for  his  laziness  and  indisposition  to  act ;  or  one 
that  is  hydropic,  for  his  immoderate  thirst.  This  divinity  will 
highly  please  profane  men.  The  salvo  he  subjoins  is  very  frivo- 
lous, and  deserves  rather  contempt  than  an  answer.  But  to  leave 
this,  it  is  plain  there  are  such  inclinations,  and  that  if  they  are 
not  rooted  out  we  are  undone.  What  though  men  might  have 
hopes,  if  they  but  erred  once,  that  they  might  easily  obtain  re- 
mission ;  yet  sure  it  must  confound  them,  when  they  still  sin  on, 
and  that  out  of  inclination.  Unless  therefore  natural  religion  is 
able  to  cure  this  disease,  and  eradicate  those  inclinations,  it  serves 
to  no  valuable  purpose,  at  least  it  is  insufficient  as  to  the  great 
ends  of  religion,  our  own  happiness  or  acceptance  with  God.  And 
that  really  it  cannot  do  so,  will  be  clear  by  the  following  consider- 
ations. 

1.  If  this  corruption  is  congenial  with  our  nature,  as  the  above- 
mentioned  arguments  go  near  to  demonstrate,  and  the  Christian 
religion  fully  proves,  it  is  evident,  that  there  must  be  some  change 
wrought  upon  our  natures.  Now  this  is  more  than  natural  religion 
can  pretend  to,  which  knows  nothing  of  regeneration,  and  the 
sanctifying  work  of  the  spirit  of  grace.  ^  know  Plato  and  some 
others  have  talked  of  inspiration^  and  some  aids  of  God :  but  this 
was  all  but  chat,  amusement,  and  a  few  tinkling  words,  which 
might  please  the  ears  ;  but  what  evidence  could  they  give,  that  any 
such  thing  was  attained,  or  attainable  ! 

2.  Though  this  were  given  up ;  yet  of  whatever  nature  this 
corruption  and  impotency  is,  call  it  natural  or  moral,  it  is  certain, 
that  it  is  strong ;  natural  religion  cannot  give  sufficient  security  that 
it  is  practicable  to  eradicate  it.  We  know  that  some  streams  of 
this  corruption  may  be  dammed  in,  some  of  the  top  branches  lop- 
ped off,  and  some  of  the  fruits  of  it  may  be  plucked.  This,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  done,  is  good  for  mankind,  and  useful  in  society. 
Some  of  the  philosophers  have  gone  a  great  way  in  it,  and  there- 
by have  shamed  most  who  are  called  Christians.  But  what  is  all 
this  to  the  eradicating  of  corruption,  purifying  the  minds  of  men, 
and  universal  conformity  in  heart  to  the  rule  of  duty  ?  The  at- 
tainments of  philospliers  need  not  here  be  talked  of:  their  virtues 
were  but  shows,  and  the  shadows  of  them.  Search  to  the  bot- 
tom, and  you  will  find,  that  what  they  called  self-denial,  was  only 
a  piece  of  delicate  interest  in  order  to  reach  self-ends  :  it  wa?  but 
a  parting  of  one  thing  pleasant  to  ourselves,  to  g;iin  a  greater,  which 
is  selfishness  in  the  extreme.  As  for  that  self-denial,  which  Chris- 
tianity teaches,  it  was  not  heard  of,  or  knoAvn  in  the  least.  Liber- 
ality was  but  a  mere  parade  of  pride,  which  values  no  irifis.  provided 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     209 

it  have  the  glory  of  being  liberal ;  modestly  was  the  art  of  conceal- 
ing our  vanity ;  civility,  but  an  affected  preference  of  other  men 
before  ourselves,  to  conceal  how  much  we  value  ourselves,  above  all 
the  world  ;  bashfulness,  but  an  affected  silence  in  those  things,  which 
lusts  make  men  think  of  with  pleasure  ;  benevolence  or  the  desire 
of  obliging  other  men,  but  a  secret  desire  of  serving  ourselves,  by 
getting  them  to  befriend  us  at  other  times  ;  gratitude,  but  an  impa- 
tience to  acquit  ourselves  of  an  obligation,  with  a  shamefacedness 
for  having  been  too  long  beholden  to  others,  for  some  favor  receiv- 
ed. So  that  all  these  pretended  virtues,  in  general,  have  only  been 
so  many  guards  made  use  of  by  self-love,  to  prevent  our  darling  and 
secret  vices  from  appearing  outwardly.  All  these  are  no  evidences, 
what  may  be  done  towards  the  removal  of  corrupt  inclinations. 
Nor  indeed  can  nature's  light  satisfy  us  that  it  is  practicable.  Can 
it  shew  us  the  man  that  has  done  it  ?  This  were  somewhat  to 
the  purpose,  could  he  be  named.  But  this  cannot  be.  Will  it 
tell  us  that  we  have  a  power  to  do  it  ?  But  this  is  somewhat 
that  we  see  and  find  by  experience,  the  strongest  and  most  con- 
vincing of  all  arguments,  not  to  be  true.  We  find  we  may  re- 
strain or  forbear  some  outward  actions,  but  we  have  no  experience 
of  a  power  to  lay  aside  or  divest  ourselves  of  inclinations  so  deep- 
ly rooted.  Besides,  they,  who  talk  of  this  power,  whereof  others 
have  no  experience,  are  liable  to  be  questioned  upon  several  things 
which  they  cannot  fairly  or  satisfy ingly  answer.  Why  do  not 
they  more  than  others  who  find  it  not,  but  complain  of  the  want  of 
this  power,  shew  that  those  inclinations  are  eradicated  which  they 
own  should  be  laid  aside,  which  they  assert  they  have  a  power  to 
lay  aside,  and  which  they  say  they  have  been  long  trying  to  over- 
come ?  The  world  will  be  forward  to  judge,  at  least,  the  thinking 
part  of  mankind  will  be  so,  that  they  are  rather  misled  by  some 
fond  speculations  to  judge  they  have  a  power  that  they  really 
want,  than  that  this  practical  proof  should  fail,  which  seems  scarce 
capable  of  an  answer. 

Now  will  men  be  effectually  engaged  in  a  work  so  difficult, 
which  they  are  never  like  to  bring  to  an  issue  ?  Will  they  not 
rather  choose  to  yield  to  the  conqueror  than  engage  in  a  war  that 
must  last  while  they  last,  and  that  without  prospect  of  conquest 
and  being  masters  in  the  end  ?  Yea,  have  they  not  done  so  ? 
Who  will  be  induced  to  such  an  undertaking  without  encourage- 
ment ? 

3.  If  this  is  practicable,  yet  it  must  be  owned  extremely  diffi- 
cult, and  what  men  will  not  easily  be  engaged  in.  Inclinations  are 
deeply  rooted,  strengthened  by  custom,  and  in  most  heightened 
by  temptations,  whereof  the  world  is  full.  Now  if  natural  religion 
is  supposed  able  to  persuade  to  such  an  undertaking,  it  must  be 

27 


210  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

well  furnished  with  strong  motives  and  inducements.  Whence 
shall  those  be  fetched  ?  From  the  rewards  of  virtue,  and  the 
punishment  of  vice  on  the  other  side  of  time  ?  We  heard  how  short 
the  accounts  of  nature's  light  of  these  are.  The  impressions  of 
these  w  ere  always  more  deeply  rooted  in  the  vulgar,  than  in  the  phi- 
losophers -y  yet  they  had  no  such  effect.  It  is  plain,  outward  en- 
couragements do  not  attend  the  practice  of  virtue.  There  re- 
mains only  then  the  beauty  of  virtue  itself.  Of  this  the  philoso- 
phers have  talked  wonderful  things.  But  the  mischief  of  it  is,  it 
was  but  talk.  When  they  missed  other  things,  they  could,  even 
with  their  dying  breath,  as  Brutus,  one  of  the  adepti,*  is  said  to 
have  done,  call  virtue  but  an  empty  name.  They  lived  otherwise 
than  they  talked,  the  best  of  them  not  excepted.  It  is  excellent- 
ly said  by  the  ingenious  Claudian, 

Ipsa  quidem  virtus  pretium  sibi  solaque  late 
Fortuns  secura  nitet,  nee  fascibus  iiUis 
Erigitur,  plaiisuve  petit  clarescere  vulgi. 
Nil  opis  externi  cupiens,  nil  indignae  laudis, 
Divitiis  animosa  suis,  immotaque  cunctis 
Casibus,  ex  alta  raortalia  despicit  arce.* 

This  is  indeed  very  prettily  said  ;  but  this  is  all.  Men  may- 
please  themselves  with  refined  speculations  of  the  excellency  of 
virtue  :  but  it  is  not  this  alone  that  can  sway  corrupt  man.  It  is 
not  the  question  what  virtue  really  is  7  But  what  men  think  of  it, 
and  can  be  made  to  see  in  it  ?  And  it  is  certain,  all  the  philoso- 
phers could  never  persuade  the  world  of  iit ;  and  no  wonder,  for 
they  could  not  persuade -themselves.  Mankind  have  had  other 
thoughts,  and  it  must  be  other  views  than  nature  can  give,  that 
will  beat  them  out  of  this.     Another  poet  plainly  opens  the  case  : 

Turpe  quidem  dictu  (sed  si  modo  vera  fatemur) 

Vulgus  amicitias  utilitate  probat : 

Cui-a  quid  expediat  prior  est,  quam  quid  sit  honestum, 

Etcum  tbrtuna  statque  caditque  fides. 

Nee  facile  iiivenies  miiltis  in  millibus  unum, 

Virtutem  pretium  qui  putat  esse  suum. 

Ipse  decor  recti,  facti  si  praemia  desint, 

Non  movet,  &  gratis  poenitet  esse  probum.t 


*  "  Perfect." 

■\  De  Consulatu  Mallii  TheodoriaM  Initio. — "  Virtue  indeed  is  its  own  re- 
ward, and  it  alone  shines  far  and  wide,  regardless  of  fortune  ;  nor  is  it  ele- 
vated bv^  any  power,  or  desires  to  become  famous  by  tlve  applause  of  the 
croud,  having  no  desire  of  outward  help,  nor  any  need  of  praise.  Bold  iu 
its  own  riches,  and  immoveable  by  all  accidents,  it  looks  down  on  mortal 
things  fi-om  a  high  eminence." 

*  Ovid,  de  Ponto,  Lib.  2.  Eleg.  3. — "  It  is  indeed  scandalous  tO' relate,  but 
if  we  will  only  confess  the  truth,  the  multitude  approves  of  friendship  only 
for  interest ;  the  case  of  what  is  profitable  is  prior  to  the  case  of  what  is 
honorable,  and  their  fidelity  stands  or  falls  with  fortune  ;  nor  will  you  easi 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     211 

Here  is  the  true  state  of  the  case.  But  to  come  closely  up  to 
the  point ;  this  beauty  of  virtue  is  not  discernible  till  we  have 
made  some  progress  in  it.  While  corrupt  inclinations  are  in  their 
vigor  in  the  heart,  such  a  beauty  is  not  easily  seen.  2.  It  is  a 
beauty  too  fine  to  be  perceived  by  vulgar  eyes,  or  indeed  by  any, 
without  deeper  and  nicer  consideration,  than  most  of  men  can  go 
to  the  chaise  of.  3.  Alone  it  is  not  sufficient  to  support  and  car- 
ry on  in  so  hazardous  an  undertaking.  This  advantage  is  not  to 
be  felt  till  the  virtue  be  obtained.  It  is  a  question  whether  it  will 
he  obtained.  So  that  it  is  plain,  natural  religion  wants  motives  to 
engage  effectually  to  this. 

4.  It  is  still  further  considerable  to  this  purpose,  that  these  vi- 
cious inclinations  are  strong,  if  not  strongest,  in  those  who  have 
neither  capacity  to  dive  into  those  few  refined  considerations, 
which  enforce  the  practice  of  virtue,  and  the  subduing  of  corrup- 
tion, nor  indeed  to  understand  them  when  proposed,  nor  have  they 
time  or  leisure  to  attend  to  the  discourses  of  the  philosophers 
where  they  are  taught,  or  money  to  purchase  them.  And  natural 
religion  provides  no  teachers,  at  least  if  we  take  it  according  to 
the  accounts  that  we  get  from  the  Deists,  who  bear  such  a  terrible 
grudge  to  a  standing  ministry,  and  have  so  oft  in  their  mouths 
that  reflection  of  Dryden,  "  Priests  of  all  religions  are  the  same." 
Now  what  a  sad  case  are  poor  men  in,  who  are  solicited  by  out- 
ward temptations  and  pushed  on  by  strong  inclinations,  and  have 
%o  small  assistance  given  them  by  natural  religion. 

5.  As  motives  are  wanting,  so  the  work  is  not  easily  carried  on, 
the  way  of  management  is  difficult,  and  the  directions  given  us  by 
the  philosophers  or  others,  are  exceedingly  unsatisfactory.  Some 
of  them  are  impossible,  such  as  the  entire  laying  aside  our  affec- 
tions ;  others  of  them  ridiculous,  such  as  that  direction  above- 
mentioned  out  of  Plato,^for  the  purification  of  our  souls  by  music 
and  mathematics,  &c.  Others,  and  indeed  most  of  them,  only  tell 
lis  what  we  are  to  do,  bid  us  do  the  thing,  but  tell  us  not  how  to 
set  about  it ;  some  of  them  only  tell  us  how  to  conceal  inward  cor- 
ruption, or  divert  it.  And,  perhaps,  I  should  not  say  amiss,  if  I 
should  say,  that  what  the  best  moral  philosophers  either  aimed  at 
or  attained,  was  only  to  dam  in  corruption  on  one  side,  to  let  it 
run  out  at  another  ;  or  to  make  that  run  in  a  secret  channel,  which 
run  open  before.  It  were  long  to  examine  their  several  directions. 
The  learned  Herbert  gives  us  a  summary  of  them,  which  I  shall 
here  present  the  reader  with.  1.  We  should  suppress  all  our  vi- 
tious  affections.  This  is  but  to  advise  the  thing,  without  telling 
us  how  it  is  to  be  done.     2.  That  we  expiate  our  sins  by  deep  re- 

"  ly  find  one  among  many  thousands,  who  thinks  that  virtue  is  its  own  reward 
"  The  beauty  of  virtue  by  itself  does  not  move  them,  if  rewards  are  wajitintf . 
"  and  they  grudge  to  be  honest  for  nothuig." 


212  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

pentance,  and  bi/  the  instituted  sacrijices  or  rites.  This  is  only  a 
remedy  for  guilt,  and  an  ill  one  too,  as  has  been  cleared  above. 
3.  That  we  avoid  the  society  of  evil  men.  But  then  we  must  go 
out  of  the  world,  or  at  least  out  of  the  heathen  world.  4.  That 
we  use  the  company  of  good  men.  But  where  shall  we  find  them 
amongst  those,  who  have  no  more  but  natural  religion  ?  5.  l^hat 
we  inquire  carefully  what  is  to  be  done,  and  what  is  not  to  be 
done  ;  but  the  question  is,  when  we  know  it.  How  shall  we  get 
the  one  avoided  and  the  other  followed,  considering  we  have  a 
strong  aversion  to  good,  and  inclination  to  evil  ?  6.  That  our 
sins,  which  arise  from  human  frailty,  should  be  corrected  or  laid 
aside.  But  still  the  question  occurs,  How  is  this  to  be  done  ? 
7.  That  we  should  use  supplications  and  prayers  to  the  gods,  as 
the  priests  prescribe.  But  for  what,  and  upon  what  grounds  ? 
And  what  will  this  help  the  matter  ? 

6.  To  conclude  this  argument,  the  universal  experience  of  man- 
kind bears  testimony  to  the  weakness  of  natural  religion.  Nothing 
in  this  matter  was  ever  done,  or  done  to  purpose,  save  where  reve- 
lation prevailed.  Should  we  narrowly  scan  the  lives,  not  of  the 
vulgar,  but  of  the  Heathen  philosophers,  as  Plato,  Aristotle,  Sene- 
ca, Plutarch,  Cato  and  Brutus,  we  might  easily  pull  off  the  mask, 
and  discover  how  little  it  was  that  they  attained  in  this  matter,  or 
rather  nothing  at  all.  Yea,  even  a  Socrates  himself  would  not  be 
able  to  stand  before  an  impartial  inquirer.  I  believe  he  could  not 
give  a  good  account  of  his  amours,  and  those  practical  instructions, 
which  he  is  said  to  have  given  his  scholar  Alcibiades.  He  repress- 
ed well  the  vanity  and  pride  of  other  philosophers  :  but  perhaps, 
nay  I  need  not  say  perhaps,  with  greater  pride  ;  yea  even  his 
death,  the  most  applauded  part  of  liis  whole  conduct,  might  be  un- 
masked, and  deprived  of  the  unjust  eulogies,  which  some  have 
made  on  it,  who,  it  may  be,  never  read  the  accounts  we  have  of 
it,  or  seriously  considered  his  carriage  on  that  occasion.  It  is  true, 
he  was  unjustly  put  to  death,  and  behaved  very  resolutely,  but 
whether  he  fell  not  a  sacrifice  to  his  own  pride,  as  much  as  to  the 
malice  of  his  enemies,  may  be  questioned.  This  I  say  not  to  de- 
tract from  those  great  men,  whom  I  admire,  considering  their  state ; 
but  to  shew,  that  they  went  not  so  high  as  some  would-  have  us 
believe. 

In  fine,  till  revealed  religion  appeared,  nothing  was  seen  in  the 
world,  of  true  piety  or  religion,  of  mortification  of  sin,  or  holiness 
of  life.  The  natural  notices  could  never  make  one  pious,  or  in- 
deed moral.  Whereas  Christianity,  upon  its  first  appearance,  in  a 
moment,  as  it  were,  made  millions  so.  And  they  who  have  re- 
jected it,  and  set  up  for  Heathenism  again,  under  the  new,  but 
injurious  name  of  Deism,  are  no  friends  to  holiness  of  life,  piety 
towards  God,  sobriety  in  their  own  way,  nor  righteousness  among 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       213 

men.  What  mighty  saints  do  Blount,  Hobbes,  Spinoza,  Urief, 
Accosta  and  others  make  ? 

I  designed  to  have  proceeded  further,  to  demonstrate  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  natural  religion  to  answer  the  ends  of  religion^  by  the 
consideration  of  its  insufficiency  to  support  under  the  troubles  of 
life,  or  amongst  the  terrors  of  death  ;  but  upon  second  thoughts  I 
judged,  after  what  has  been  said,  it  was  not  needful.  Besides,  if 
any  look  but  at  it,  they  may  easily  see  it  utterly  insufficient  to 
this  purpose,  as  it  is  indeed  to  the  other  great  ends  of  religion. 

If  the  well-founded  prospect  of  future  rewards,  and  a  clear 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  excellency  of  things  eternal  and  not 
seen,  the  present  intimations  of  divine  love,  in  cross  dispensations, 
the  supports  of  divine  powerful  grace  under  them,  the  usefulness 
of  those  calamities,  by  virtue  of  divine  ordination  and  concurrent 
influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  verified  in  the  experience  of  the 
sufferers,  are  laid  aside,  as  natural  religion  does,  which  knows  no- 
thing of  these,  all  that  men  can  say  to  comfort  under  affliction,  or 
arm  against  the  horrors  of  death,  is  but  an  unprofitable  amusement, 
or  at  least,  like  rattles  and  oiher  toys  we  give  to  children,  that  do 
not  in  the  least  ease  them  of  the  pain  they  are  under  ;  but  do  for 
a  little,  divert  the  mind,  while  they  are  looked  at ;  but  as  soon  as 
the  first  impression  is  over,  which  those  new  toys  make  on  the 
mind,  the  sense  of  pain  recurs  again,  with  that  redoubled  force, 
which  it  always  has,  when  it  immediately  succeeds  either  ease  or 
want  of  sense.  And  if  it  is  really  violent,  these  things  will  not 
avail,  no  not  to  divert  trouble  for  a  little.  It  is  but  a  sorry  com- 
fort to  tell  me,  that  others  are  troubled  as  well  as  I,  or  worse  ;  that 
death,  which  I  fear,  will  end  it ;  that  I  must  bear  it ;  that  I  have 
other  enjoyments,  which  yet  present  pain  will  not  allow  me  to 
relish.  Yet  such  are  the  best  consolations  that  natural  religion 
affords. 


CHAP.  xn. 

Wherein  the  Proof  of  the  Insufjidency  of  Natural  Religion  is 
concluded  from  a  general  View  of  the  Experietice  of  the  World. 

AS  a  conclusion  to,  and  illustration  of  what  has  hitherto  been 
discoursed,  for  demonstrating  the  insufficienci/  o(  natural  religion, 
I  shall  here  offer  a  six-fold  view  of  the  experience  of  the  world  in 
general,  without  descending  to  particular  instances,  which  have  in 
part  been  touched  at,  and  offered  before,  and  are  every  where  to 
be  met  with. 


214  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

1.  Let  us  view  man  as  a  creature  made  for  this  end,  to  glorify 
God  and  enjoy  him,  abstracting  from  the  consideration  of  his  cor- 
ruption, which  the  Deists  sometimes  deny,  and  sometimes  with 
difficulty,  do  but  in  part  admit.  And  let  us  consider  him  as  left 
to  pursue  this  noble  end,  in  the  use  of  his  rational  faculties,  under 
the  conduct  of  the  mere  light  of  nature :  If  we  consider  him  thus, 
and  inquire  into  the  experience  of  the  world,  how  far  he  has  reach- 
ed this  end,  we  shall  find  such  an  account,  as  will  much  confirm 
the  truth  we  have  hitherto  asseited,  and  weaken  the  credit  of  the 
Deists'  imaginary  sufficiency  of  nature's  light  to  conduct  man  to 
the  end  for  which  he  was  made. 

If  we  look  to  the  generality  of  mankind,  we  shall  find  them  in  a 
posture  much  like  that  wherein  the  prophet  saw  the  princes  in  the 
vision,  with  their  backs  to  the  chief  end,  never  once  thinking  for 
what  they  were  made,  pursuing  other  things  ;  every  one  as  lust 
led  him,  following  his  own  humor,  walking  in  a  direct  and  open 
contradiction  to  that  law,  which  was  originally  designed  for  the 
guide  of  our  life,  and  the  directory  to  bliss,  that  happiness,  which 
all  Mould  have,  though  they  know  not  where  to  find  it. 

If  we  look  at  the  philosophers,  we  may  see  them  sitting  vp  late, 
rising  early,  eating  the  bread  of  carefulness,  wearying  themselves 
in  the  search  of  happiness,  running  into  hundreds  of  different  no- 
tions about  it,  and  yet  not  one  of  them  hitting,  or  at  least  under- 
standing the  true  one  ;  and  as  little  agreed  about  the  way  to  it. — 
We  may  hear  them  talk  of  virtue,  but  never  levelling  it  at  its 
proper  end,  the  glory  of  God.  We  may  hear  them  urging  its 
practice,  but  not  upon  the  proper  grounds.  Rarely  any  regard  to 
the  authority  of  God,  the  only  formal  ground  of  obedience.  In- 
stead of  plain  rules  useful  to  mankind,  they  obtrude  cryptic  and 
dark  sentences,  rather  designed  to  make  others  admire  them,  than 
to  be  useful  to  any.  They  every  where  tack  their  own  fancies 
to  the  divine  law,  a  weight  sufficient  to  sink  it  as  to  its  truth,  in 
the  apprehensions  of  men,  or  at  least,  as  to  its  usefulness.  They 
offer  a  rule  defective  in  most  things  of  moment,  corrupt  in  many, 
ruining  in  not  a  few  instances,  destitute  of  any  other  authority 
than  their  own  say,  or  ipse  dixit,  unintelligible  to  the  generality, 
and  naked  as  to  inducements  to  obey  it. 

2.  Let  us  consider  man  i>s  made  for  this  end,  but  barred  from 
its  attainment,  by  the  interposition  of  those  great  hinderances  and 
rubs  which  now  are  certainly  in  its  way  ;  I  mean  darkness,  guilt 
«nd  corruption.  These  are  stones  in  the  way.  How  has  nature's 
light  acquitted  itself  as  to  the  rolling  them  away  ?  Truly  they  have 
I'ten  like  F^ysiphus's  stone,  as  fast  as  they  have  rolled  them  up,  as 
fast  they  have  recoiled  and  fallen  back  on  them. 

As  to  that  darkness  that  hfss  overspread  the  minds  of  men,  if 
we  look  at  the  generality,  we  find  them  like  blind  men,  content  to 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      215 

jog  on  in  the  dart,  mired  every  where,  stumbling  frequently,  and 
falling  sometimes  dangerously  ;  yet  satisfied  with  their. case,  not 
looking  after  light  :  not  so  much  because  they  want  it  not,  as  be- 
cause they  have  no  notion  of  it,  or  its  usefulness  ;  like  blind  men 
that  never  saw  the  sun,  and  therefore  suffer  the  loss  of  it  with  less 
regret,  than  they  who  once  saAv,  but  now  have  lost  their  eyes. — 
They  follow  as  they  are  led  ;  are  ready  to  take  hold  of  any  hand, 
though  of  one  as  blind  as  themselves,  and  are  never  sensible  of  the 
mistake,  till  sunk  where  they  cannot  get  out  again.  The  philoso- 
phers indeed  seem  a  little  more  sensible  of  their  case,  and  fancying 
truth  to  be  hid  in  Democritus's  well,  dive  for  it,  but  lose  their 
breath  before  they  come  at  it,  and  fall  into  dangerous  eddies  or 
whirlpools,  where  they  lose  themselves  instead  of  finding  truth  ; 
or  trying  to  fetch  it  up,  but  with  a  line  too  short,  they  fetch  up 
some  weeds  that  are  nourished  by  their  nearness  to  the  waters,  and 
please  themselves  with  those.  After  all  their  painful  endeavors 
we  find  them  groping  in  the  dark,  as  to  all  useful  and  necessary 
knowledge  of  God,  or  the  way  of  worshipping  him  ; — of  ourselves, 
our  happiness,  our  sins,  the  way  of  obtaining  pardon,  our  duty  or 
our  corruption. 

As  to  guilt,  if  we  look  at  the  case  of  mankind,  and  their  endea 
vors  for  the  removal  of  it,  we  find  the  most  part  drowned  in  end- 
less despair  or  fatal  security  j  like  men  at  their  wit's  end,  trying 
all  ways  that  fear,  superstition,  or  racked  imagination  can  supply, 
and  still  unsatisfied  with  their  own  inventions,  they  are  ready  to 
try  all  ways  that  self-designing  men,  or  even  the  Devil  can  suggest 
to  them,  sparing  no  cost,  no  travel,  no  pain.  They  stand  not  to 
give  the  fruit  of  their  bod//  for  the  sin  of  their  soul.  The  philo- 
sophers either  think,  through  their  pride,  they  have  no  sin,  be- 
cause they  are  not  quite  so  bad  as  the  vulgar ;  or,  if  they  still  re- 
tain some  sense  of  sin,  they  are  driven  into  the  utmost  perplexity, 
being  convinced  of  the  wickedness  of  the  measures  taken  by  the 
vulgar,  or  at  least  of  their  uselessness  and  impertinency,  and  yet 
unable  to  find  out  better  ;  they  try  to  divert  their  thoughts  from  a 
sore  they  know  no  plaister  for. 

As  to  corruption,  we  find  all  confessing  it,  crying  out  of  the  dis- 
ease ;  and  indeed  it  is  rather  because  it  cannot  be  hid, — the  sore 
runs,  than  because  it  is  painful  to  many.  The  generality  despair 
of  stemming  the  tide,  and  finding  it  easiest  to  swim  with  the  stream, 
are  willingly  carried  headlong.  The  body  of  philosophers  are  in- 
deed like  weak  watermen  on  a  strong  stream,  they  look  one  way 
but  are  carried  another.  Though  they  pretend  they  aim  at  the 
ruining  of  vice,  yet  really  they  do  it  no  hurt,  save  that  they  speak 
against  it.  A  few  of  the  best  of  them  being  ashamed  to  be  found 
amongst  the  rest,  swimming,  or  rather  carried  down  the  stream 


216  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

on  the  surface,  that  is,  in  open  vice,  have  dived  to  the  bottom  ;  but 
reaWy  made  as  much  way  under  water  as  the  others  above, 

3.  Let  us  view  mankind  under  the  goodness  and  forbearance  of 
God,  these  helps  which  some  think  sufficient.  These  words  are 
used,  or  rather  abused,  as  a  blind  in  a  matter  of  very  great  import- 
ance ;  and  men  Avho  use  them  will  scarce  tell,  if  they  can,  even  in 
the  subject  of  the  present  discourse,  in  what  sense  they  use  them. 
But  let  it  be  as  it  will,  some  pretend  the  works  of  providence,  par- 
ticularly God's  goodness  and  forbearance  sufficient.  "Well,  let  us 
see  the  experience  of  the  world  in  this. 

If  we  view  mankind  under  this  consideration,  we  may  see  them 
so  tar  from  being  led  to  repentance,  that  most  part  never  once  took 
notice  of  this  conduct  of  God.  Others,  and  they  not  a  few,  have 
abused  it  to  the  worst  purposes.  Because  judgmtnt  against  an 
evil  work,  has  not  been  speedih/  executed,  therefore  their  hearts 
were  wholly  set  in  them  to  do  evil.  The  more  inquisitive  have 
raised  a  charge  against  God  as  encouraging  wickedness.  And  as 
for  the  favors  they  enjoyed  themselves,  they  looked  on  them,  not 
as  calls  to  repentance,  but  as  rewards  for  their  pretended  virtues, 
and  scanty  ones  too,  below  the  worth  of  them.  Not  a  few  of 
them  have  gone  near  to  arraign  God  of  injustice,  for  lesser  afflic- 
tions they  were  visited  with ;  while  others  have  been  entangled 
and  tossed  to  and  fro  by  cross  appearances.  So  that  none  have  by 
this  goodness  of  God  been  led  to  repentance. 

4.  Let  us  view  man  living  in  the  place  where  revelation  obtains, 
or  where  the  Christian  religion  is  professed  and  taught,  but  re- 
nouncing and  rejecting  it,  and  in  profession  owning  only  natural  re- 
ligion :  Such  are  the  Deists  among  usv  If  we  consider  their  words, 
they  talk  indeed  that  natural  religion  is  sufficient ;  and  to  make  it 
indeed  appear  so,  some  of  them  have  adorned  it  with  jewels  bor- 
roAved  from  the  temple  of  God,  ascribing  to  nature's  light  discove- 
ries in  religion,  which  originally  were  owing  to  rcA^elation,  and  were 
never  dreamed  of  where  it  did  not  obtain:  though  being  once  dis- 
covered, they  have  gained  the  consent  of  sober  reason.  But  now 
M'e  are  not  considering  the  speech,  but  the  power  of  these  men  ; 
not  what  they  say  of  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion,  but  what 
real  experience  they  have  of  it,  and  what  evidence  they  give  of 
this  in  their  practice. 

If  we  thus  consider  them,  we  find,  that  although  when  they 
have  a  mind  to  impose  their  notion  of  tiie  sufficiency  of  natural 
religion  upon  others,  they  pretend,  that  it  is  clear,  as  to  a  great 
many  points  or  principle;?,  that  are  confessedly  of  the  greatest 
moment  in  religion ;  yet  when  they  begin  to  speak  more  plainly 
and  freely  their  own  inward  sentiments,  they  shew  that  they  are 
not  fixed,  no  not  about  the  very  principles  themselve?,  even  these 
of  them  which  are   of  the  greatest  consequence.      3Iv.  Gildon, 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      2U 

publisher  of  the  Oracles  of  Reason,  is  not  far  from  asserting  two 
anti-gods,  the  one  good  the  other  evil ;  and  so  falls  in  with  the 
Persians.*  Blount  favours  the  opinion  of  Ocellus  Lucanus,  about 
the  world's  eternity,  and  consequently  denies,  or  at  least  hesitates 
about  creation.^  The  immaterialily  of  the  soul  seems  to  be  flatly 
rejected  by  them  all.  Nor  do  they  seem  very  firm  as  to  its  im- 
niortality.  In  short,  after  they  have  been  at  so  much  pains  to 
trim  up  natural  religion,  and  make  it  look  sufficient-like,  they  yet 
express  a  hesitation  about  its  siifficiency  to  eternal  /(/^-J  We 
have  heard  Herbert  to  this  purpose  already.  Blount,  in  a  letter 
lo  Dr.  Sydenham,  prefixed  to  the  Deist^s  Reasons,  says  plainly, 
that  it  is  not  safe  to  trust  Deism  alone,  without  Cliristianity  joined 
lo  it.  And  the  Deist's  hope  is  summed  up  in  this,  in  the  4th 
chap,  of  the  SummarT/  of  the  Deist's  Reasons,  That  "  there  is 
more  probability  of  his  salvation,  than  of  the  credulous  and  ill-living 
Papist  ;"|1  and  that  is  just  none  at  all. 

Nor  does  their  practice  give  one  jot  of  a  better  proof  of  the 
sufficiency  of  that  religion  which  they  profess :  yea,  it  affords  con- 
vincing evidence  of  its  weakness,  uselessness,  and  utter  insufficien- 
cy. Their  lives  shew  that  they  are  not  in  earnest  about  any  thing 
in  religion.  They  are  Latitudinarians  in  practice.  Thejr  words, 
(heir  actions,  have  no  savour  of  a  regard  to  a  Deity ;  but  they  go 
on  in  all  manner  of  impieties  in  practice,  and  perhaps  in  the  end, 
put  a  period  to  a  wretched  life  by  their  own  hands,  as  Blount, 
Uriel,  Acosta  and  others  have  done,  and  the  survivors  justify  the 
deed,  upon  trifling  and  childish  reasonings  ;  as  not  knowing  but 
they  may  one  day  be  put  to  use  the  same  shift.  I  am  not  in  the 
least  deterred  from  asserting  this,  by  the  coramendatior.s  that  the 
publisher  of  the  Oracles  of  Reason  gives  to  Mr.  Blount,  as  a  per- 
son remarkable  for  virtue."^*  If  a  profane,  jocular,  and  unbecom- 
ing treatment  of  the  gravest  and  most  important  truths  that  belong, 
e^'en  by  his  own  acknowledgment,  to  natural  religion ;  yea,  and  are 
1  he  principal  props  of  it  ;  and  if  gross  and  palpable  disingenuity  be 
instances  of  that  virtue  that  he  ascribes  to  him,  and  evidences  of 
those  just  and  adequate  notions  of  the  Deity,  in  which  he  says 
Mr.  Blount  was  bred  up,  I  could  givf;  instances  enough  from  the 
book  itself  of  such  virtues  :  But  I  love  not  to  rake  in  the  ashes  of 
the  dead.  Again,  others  of  the  Deists,  having  wearied  themselves 
in  chaceof  a  phantom  to  no  purpose,  and  having  neither  the  grace 
nor  ingenuity  to  return  to  the  religion  they  abandoned,  either  laud 
in  downright  Atheism  in  principle  and  practice,  or  they  throw 
themselves   into  the  arms  of  the  pretended  infallible  guide ;  and 

»  Oracles  of  Reason,  nacre  19'k  212,  228. 
t  Ibid,  154,  187. 

i  Ibid,  iir,  i2r. 

I'  Oracles  of  Kcuson,  at  the  beginning-,  account  c?  Bb'rnt.'g  ITfe— »•  tv-,,j 

2« 


218  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

thereby  give  evidence   how  well  founded  the  Jesuitical  maxim  b, 
Make  a  man  once  an  Atheist,  he  will  soon  turn  Papist. 

5.  Let  us  view  men  living  under  the  gospel,  embracing  it  in 
profession,  but  unacquainted  with  that  Spirit  that  gives  life  and 
power  to  its  doctrines,  precepts,  promises,  threats  and  ordinances. 
They,  besides  that  they  are  possessed  of  all  the  advantages  of 
nature's  light,  have  moreover  the  superadded  advantages  of  reve- 
lation, and  its  institutions.  They  have  ministers  and  parents  in- 
structing them,  and  discipline  to  restrain  them,  they  are  trained 
up  in  the  faith  of  future  rewards,  and  instructed  in  the  nature  and 
excellency  of  them,  for  their  encouragement  ;  they  have  punish- 
ments proposed  to  them  to  deter  them  from  sin,  which  they  profess 
to  believe  ;  yet  if  we  consider  the  practice  of  the  generality  of 
such  persons,  it  gives  a  sufficient  evidence,  that  all  this  is  not 
enough.  Who  but  a  man  blind  or  foolish  can  then  dote  so  far  as  to 
pretend  nature's  light  alone  sufficient,  when  it  is  not  so,  even 
when  helped  by  so  many  accessory  improvements  ? 

If  we  consider  the  experience  of  them  who  have  received  the 
gospel  in  truth,  and  felt  its  power,  we  find  they  have  indeed  reach- 
ed the  ends  of  religion  in  part,  and  have  a  fair  prospect  as  to  fur- 
ther success.  Well,  what  is  their  sense  of  the  sufficiency  of  na- 
ture's light  ?  Why,  if  you  observe  them  in  their  public  devotions, 
you  shall  hear  heavy  out-cries  of  their  own  darkness,  weakness 
and  wickedness ;  you  may  hear  serious  prayers  for  divine  light,  and 
life  to  quicken  them,  strengthen  and  incline  them  to  follow  duty, 
and  support  them  in  it,  against  the  power  of  temptations,  which 
they  own  themselves  unable  to  master,  without  the  poweiful  aids 
of  divine  grace.  If  you  follow  them  into  their  retirements,  where 
the  matter  is  managed  betwixt  God  and  them  alone,  where  they 
are  under  none  of  these  temptations,  to  maintain  the  credit  of  any 
received  notions,  and  therefore  must  be  presumed  to  speak  out 
the  practical  sense  of  the  state  of  their  case,  without  any  disguise  ; 
there  you  shall  find  nothing  but  deep  confessions  of  guilt,  darkness 
and  inability,  with  earnest  cries,  prayers  and  tears,  for  supplies  of 
grace  :  and  what  they  attain  in  matters  of  religion,  you  shall  find 
them  freely  owning,  that  it  was  not  the?/  but  the  gra^e  of  God  in 
them  that  brought  them  to  this.  And  the  more  that  any  is  con- 
cerned about  religion,  or  know  and  has  attained  in  it,  still  you  will 
find  him  the  more  sensible  of  this  state  of  things. 

This  is  but  a  hint  of  what  might  have  been  said :  but  I  have 
rather  chosen  to  offer  a  general  scheme  of  the  argument  from  ex- 
perience, which  every  one,  from  his  own  private  reading  and  ob- 
servation, may  illustrate  with  observations  and  particular  instances, 
than  to  insist  upon  it  at  large,  which  would  have  required  a  vo- 
lume. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     219 


CHAP.    XIII. 

Wherein  me  make  a  transition  to  the  DeisVs  Pleas  for  their  opin- 
ion^  and  take  particular  Notice  of  the  Articles  to  which  they  re- 
duce their  Catholic  Religion,  give  some  Account  of  Baron 
Herbert,  the  first  Inventor  of  this  Catholic  Religion,  his  Books, 
and  particularly/  of  that  which  is  inscribed  De  Religione  Gen- 
tilium,  as  to  the  Matter  and  Scope  of  it,  and  the  Importance  of 
what  is  therein  attempted  to  the  DeisVs  Cause. 

WE  hare  now  proposed  and  confirmed  our  own  opinion  ;  our 
next  business  is  to  inquire  more  particularly  into  that  of  the 
Deists,  and  consider  what  they  offer  for  it. 

The  first  set  of  Deists,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  did  satisfy  them- 
selves with  the  rejection  of  all  supernatural  revelation,  and  a  gene- 
ral pretence,  that  natural  religion  was  suQicient,  without  telling 
the  world  of  what  articles  it  did  consist,  what  belonged  thereto, 
or  how  far  it  went.  The  learned  lord  Herbert  was  the  first  who 
did  cultivate  this  notion,  and  dressed  Deism,  and  brought  it  to 
something  of  a  form.  This  honor  he  assumes  to  himself,  glories 
in  it,  and  we  see  no  ground  to  dispute  this  with  him.  I  have  met 
with  nothing  in  any  of  the  modern  Deists  that  makes  towards  this 
subject,  which  is  not  advanced  by  him,  and  probably  borrowed 
from  his  writings.  It  will  not  therefore  be  impertinent  to  give  the 
reader  some  account  of  him. 

This  Edward  Herbert  was  a  descendant  from  a  younger  brother 
of  the  family  of  Pembroke.  He  was  brother  to  the  famous  George 
Herbert,  the  divine  poet.  His  education  was  at  Oxford,  where  he 
was  for  some  time  a  fellow  Commoner  in  University  College  there. 
After  he  left  the  University,  he  improved  himself  by  travels  into 
foreign  nations,  and  obtained  the  reputation  of  a  scholar,  a  states- 
man and  a  soldier.  He  was  made  Knight  of  the  Bath  at  the  coro- 
nation of  king  James  I.  in  England,  who  afterwards  sent  him  as 
ambassador  to  Lewis  XIII.  on  behalf  of  the  French  Protestants  : 
and  upon  his  return  he  was  created  Baron  of  Castle-Island,  in 
Ireland  ;  and  by  king  Charles  I.  anno.  1 630,  he  was  created  a 
Baron  of  England,  by  the  title  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbunj,  and 
died  in  1648.* 

This  learned  person  having  once  unhappily  apostatised  from  the 
religion  wherein  he  was  bred,  into  Deism,  though,  as  other  Deists 
likewise  do,  he  did  still  seem  to  own  the  Church  of  England ;  yet 
be  set  himself  for  the  maintenance  of  Deism  in  his  writings.     And 


*  See  Geograph.  Diction,  articlea  Herbert  vxA  Deism.    See  also  the  Life  of 
Mr.  Gcovg'e  Herbert. 


220  AN  INaWlRY  INTO  THE 

to  this  purpose  he  published  some  time  after  the  year  1640,  (tor  I 
have  not  the  first  edition  of  it)  his  book  de  Veritate,  and  shortly 
after  another,  de  Causis  Errorum.  These  two  books  are  for  the 
most  part  philosophical,  and  written  with  some  singularity  of  notion. 
What  is  tnith  in  them  is  rather  delivered  in  a  new  way  than  new ; 
and  by  the  use  of  vulgar  words  in  new  and  uncommon  acceptations, 
and  his  obscure  way  of  management  of  his  notions,  is  scarcely  in- 
telligible to  any  but  metaphysical  readers,  nor  to  such,  without 
greater  application,  than  perhaps  the  matter  is  worth.  I  should 
not  think  myself  concerned  in  either  of  these  two  books,  their 
subject  being  philosophical,  were  it  not  that  it  is  his  avowed  design 
in  them,  to  lay  a  foundation  for  his  peculiar  notions  in  religion. 

There  are  two  things  at  which  Herbert,  in  these  and  his  other 
writings,  plainly  aims  at — to  overthrow  revelation  and  to  establish 
natiiral  religion  in  its  room.  It  is  not  my  design  or  province  at 
present,  to  defend  revelation  against  the  efforts  of  this  or  any  other 
author,  though  I  think  it  were  a  business  of  no  great  difficulty  to 
remove  what  Herbert  has  said  against  it ;  .yet  since  I  have  men- 
tioned his  attempt  upon  it,  I  cannot  pass  it  without  some  short,  but 
just  remarks  upon  his  unfair,  if  not  disingenuous  way  of  treating 
revelation. 

1.  On  many  occasions,  with  what  candor  and  ingenuity  himself 
knew,  he  professeth  a  great  respect  to  revelation,  and  particularly 
to  the  scripture's,  and  pretends  he  designs  nothing  in  prejudice  of 
the  established  religion  :  but  any  one  that  peruses  the  books  will 
soon  see,  that  this  is  only  like  Joab''s  kiss,  a  blind  to  make  his 
reader  secure,  and  fear  no  danger  from  the  sword  that  he  has  under 
his  garment  :  For  notwithstanding  of  this,  he  every  where  insinu- 
ates prejudices  against  all  revelation,  as  uncertain,  unnecessary/, 
and  of  little  or  no  use  to  any,  save  those  to  whom  it  was  originally, 
or  rather  immediately  given. 

2.  Upon  all  occasions,  and  sometimes  Avithout  any  occasion  given 
him  from  his  subject,  he  makes  sallies  upon  truths  of  the  greatest 
importance  in  the  Christian  religion  ;  such  as  the  doctrines  of  the 
corruption  of  our  nature,  satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  the  decrees 
of  God,  &c.  And  having  represented  them  disingenuously,  or 
else  ignorantly,  (which  1  less  suspect  in  a  man  of  his  learning)  not 
in  that  way  they  are  proposed  in  scripture,  or  taught  by  those  who 
maintain  them,  but  under  the  disguise  of  gross  misrepresentations, 
mistaken  notions,  and  strained  consequences  :  and  having  thus  put 
them  in  beast's  skins,  as  the  primitive  persecutors  did  the  Chris- 
tians, he  sets  his  dogs  upon  them  to  worry  them ;  and  this  v/ithout 
any  regard  had  unto  the  foundation  they  have  in  the  scriptures,  or 
the  evidence  of  the  proofs  that  may  be  advanced  for  tiie  scriptures 
in  general,  or  these  doctrines  in  particular,  and  without  all  consi- 
der^ition  of  the  inconsistency  of  ihh  vray  of  treating  truths  plainly 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      221 

taught,  and  inculcated  as  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  scrip- 
tures, with  that  respect,  which  upon  other  occasions  he  pretends 
to  that  divine  book. 

3.  Ife  states  wrong  notions  of  the  grounds  whereupon  revela- 
tion is  received,  and  overthrows  those  imaginary  ones  he  has  set 
up,  as  the  reasons  of  our  belief  of  the  scriptures,  and  then  tri- 
umphs in  success.  How  easy  is  it  to  set  up  a  man  of  straw  and 
beat  him  down  with  the  finger  ! 

4.  The  Deists  generally,  and  Herbert  in  particular,  do  grant, 
that  the  Christian  revelation  has  manifestly  the  advantage  of  all 
other  pretenders  to  revelation,  as  in  respect  of  the  intrinsic  excel 
lency  of  the  matter,  so  likewise  in  respect  of  the  reasons  that 
may  be  pleaded  for  its  truth. "^  And  so  certain  and  evident  is 
this,  that  one  of  their  number  owns,  that  Christianity  has  "  the 
"  fairest  pretensions  of  any  religion  in  the  world,"  and  exhorts  to 
''  make  a  diligent  enquiry  into  it  ;  arguing,  "  that  if  the  pre- 
"  tcnces  of  Christianity  be  well  grounded,  it  cannot  be  a  frivolous 
"  and  indiflferent  matter;"  and  he  grants  further,  that  "  the  truth 
*'  of  the  matters  of  fact  which  confirm  it,  is  hardly  possible  to  be 
"  denied. "f  Now  notwithstanding  of  this  manifest  and  acknow- 
ledged difference  betwixt  the  scriptures  and  other  pretenders  lo 
revelation,  when  Herbert  speaks  of  revelation,  he  jumbles  all  pre- 
tenders together  without  distinction,  and  urges  the  faults  of  the 
most  ridiculous  and  obviously  spurious  pretenders,  against  revela- 
tion, in  general,  as  if  every  particular  one,  and  especially  Chris- 
tianity, were  chargeable  with  these  fiiults  :  Is  this  candid  and  fair 
dealing,  to  insinuate  into  the  unwary  reader  that  these  palpable  evi- 
dences of  imposture  are  to  be  found  in  all  revelations  alike,  while, 
even  they  themselves  being  judges,  the  scriptures  are  not 
concerned  in  them  ?  Yet  this  is  the  way  that  Christianity  h 
treated  by  this  learned  author  ;  and  his  steps  have  been  closely 
traced  in  this  piece  of  scandalous  disingenuity,  (for  I  can  give  it 
no  milder  name,)  by  Blount  and  the  other  writers  of  the  party, 
as  I  could  make  appear  by  many  instances,  if  need  required. 

5.  Our  author  makes  high  pretences  to  accuracy  in  searching 
after  truth,  and  treats  all  other  authors  with  the  greatest  scorn  and 
contempt  imaginable,  as  short  in  that  point  :  yet  he  seldom  states 
a  question  fairly,  but  huddles  all  up  in  the  dark,  especially,  when 
he  speaks  about  revelation,  and  heaps  together  difficulties  about  all 
the  concernments  of  revealed  religion,  without  any  regard  to  the 
distinct  heads  to  which  they  belong.  This  is  a  ready  way  to 
shake  the  faith  of  his  reader  about  all  truths,  but  establish  him  in 
none. 

Other  reflections  I  forbear,  though  he  has  given  fair  occasion  for 
many  :  but  this  is  not  my  subject.     This  part  of  his  discourse  lias 

♦  Rcligio  Laici  pape  9, 10.  Letter  to  the  Deists,  page  139. 


222  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

been  animadverled  on  by  a  learned  author,  though  the  book  is  not 
come  to  my  hand.* 

The  other  branch  of  our  author's  design,  viz.  His  attempt  to 
establish  the  svfficienct/  of  natural  religion,  is  that  wherein  I  am 
directly  concerned.  This  he  only  proposes  in  his  book  de  Veritate 
at  the  close,  with  a  short  explication  of  his  famed  five  Articles,  of 
which  more  anon.  And  in  a  small  treatise  entitled  Religio  Laid, 
subjoined  to  his  book  dc  Causis  Errorum,  he  further  explains 
them.  The  design  of  this  last  mentioned  treatise  is  to  shew,  that 
the  vulgar  can  never  come  to  certainty  about  the  truth  of  any 
partictdar  revelation,  or  the  preferableness  of  its  pretences  unto 
othere,  and  that  therefore  of  necessity  they  must  sit  down  satis- 
fied with  the  religion  he  offers  them,  consisting  of  five  articles, 
agreed  to,  if  we  believe  him,  by  all  religions. 

The  religion,  consisting  of  five  articles,  which  we  shall  exhibit 
immediately,  he  attempts  to  prove  svfficient  by  some  arguments 
in  that  last  mentioned  treatise.  But  the  principal  proof,  on  which 
our  author  lays  the  whole  stress  of  his  cause,  is  at  lai-ge  exhibited 
in  another  tieatise  of  our  author,  de  Religione  Gentilinm,  publish- 
ed at  Amsterdam,  anno  1663,  by  J.  Vossiiis,  son  to  the  great 
Ger.  Joan.  Vossiiis.  His  pleadings  in  these  and  his  other  writ- 
ings Ave  shall  call  to  an  account  by  and  bye. 

Herbert,  in  his  treatise  de  Religione  Gentilium,  pretends.  What- 
ever mistakes  the  Gentile  world  was  under  in  matters  of  religion  ; 
yet  there  was  as  much  agreed  to  by  all  nations,  as  was  necessary 
to  their  eternal  happiness.  Particularly,  he  tells  us,  that  they 
were  agreed  about  five  Articles,  of  natural  religion,  which  he 
thinks  are  sufficient,  viz.  1.  That  there  is  one  supreme  God.  2. 
That  he  is  to  be  ivorshipped,  3.  That  virtue  is  the  principal 
part  of  his  worship.  4.  That  we  must  repent  of  our  sins.  5. 
That  there  are  reivards  and  punishments  both  in  this  life  and  that 
ivhiih  is  to  coyne.'l 

Charles  Blount,  who  set  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Deists  some 
few  years  ago,  in  a  small  treatise  entitled  Religio  Laid,  printed 
168^^,  which  in  effect  is  only  a  translation  of  Herbert's  book  of 
the  same  name,  inverting  a  little  the  order,  but  without  the  addi- 
tion of  any  oiie  thought  of  moment  ;  in  this  treatise,  I  say,  he 
reckons  up  the  articles  of  natural  religion  much  after  the  same 
manner.  1.  T/uit  there  is  one  only  supreme  God.  2.  Thai  he 
chiejb/  is  to  be  worshipped.  3.  That  virtue,  goodness  and  piety, 
arxompanied  with  faith  in,  and  love  to  God,  are  the  best  ways  of 
wrivshipping  him.  4.  Thai  we  should  repent  of  our  sins  from 
the  bottom  of  our  hearts,  and  turn  to  the  right  way.  5.  That 
there  is  a  reward  and  punishment  after  this  Ufe.f 

*  Baxter's  More  Reasons  for  the  Christian  Religion,  and  no  Reason  against 
it,  in  the  Appendix, 
f  De  Relij^.  Gcntil.  page  186,  210,  &;c.        f  Ibid.  49,  50. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     223 

Another,  in  a  letter  directed  to  Mr.  Blount,  subscribed  A.  W. 
has  given  us  an  account  of  them  somewhat  difTerent  from  both  the 
former,  in  seven  articles.  1.  That  there  is  one  infinite^  and  eter- 
nal Gody  creator  of  all  things.  2.  That  he  governs  the  world  by 
providence.  3.  That  it  is  our  duty  to  worship  and  obey  him  as  our 
Creator  and  Governor.  4.  That  our  wor§htp  consists  in  prayer 
ta  him,  and  praise  of  him.  5.  That  our  obedience  consists  in  the 
rules  of  right  I'eason,  the  practice  whereof  is  moral  virtue.  6. 
That  we  are  to  expect  rewards  and  punishments  hereafter  accord- 
ing to  our  actions  in  this  life  ;  which  includes  the  soul's  immor- 
tality, and  is  proved  by  our  admitting  providence.  7.  That,  ivhen 
we  err  from  the  rides  of  our  duty,  we  ought  to  repent  and  trust  in 
God's  mercy  for  pardon.'^  To  the  same  purpose,  without  any 
alteration  of  moment  from  what  we  have  above  quoted,  Herbert 
reckons  up  and  repeats  the  same  articles  in  his  other  treatises. 

These  other  authors  do  but  copy  afler  Herbert.  To  him  the 
honor  of  this  invention  belongs,  and  he  valncs  himself  not  a  little 
upon  it.  Let  us  hear  himself.  "  Atque  ila  (sed  non  sine  muUi- 
"  plici  accwataque  religionum  turn  dissectione,  turn  inspect  lone) 
"  quinque  illos  articulos  scepius  jam  adduclos  deprehcndi.  Qui- 
"  bus  etiam  inventis  me  feliciorem  Archimede  quovis  exislima- 
"  i;t."*  He  acquaints  us,  that  he  consulted  divines  and  wiiters 
of  all  parties,  but  in  vain,  for  to  find  the  universal  religion  hft 
sought  after ;  it  is  not  tlierefore  likely,  if  any  had  nroulded  thl? 
universal  religion,  or  put  it  into  a  form  meet  for  the  Deist's  pur- 
pose before  him,  that  it  could  have  escaped  his  observation  and 
diligence. 

Now  we  have  had  a  sufficient  view  of  the  articles,  to  which  the 
Deists  reduce  their  religion.  Let  us  next  inquire  after  the  proof 
of  this  religion  ;  the  burden  whereof  must  lean  upon  Herbert. 
The  Deists  since  his  time  have  added  nothing  that  has  a  shew  of 
proof  that  I  can  yet  see.  Well,  after  he  has  in  his  other  treatises, 
as  has  been  said,  proposed  and  explained  his  rehgion  he  at  length 
comes  to  the  proof  of  it  in  his  treatise  de  Religione  Gcntilium. 
Here  the  main  strength  of  his  cause  lies,  and  with  this  we  shall 
mainly  deal  ;  yet  so  as  not  to  overlook  any  thing  that  has  a  shew 
of  proof  elsewhere  in  his  writings. 

In  this  treatise  de  Religione  Gentilium,  he  makes  it  his  work  to. 
illustrate  and  prove,  "  That  the  abovementioned  five  articles  were 
universally  believed  by  people  of  all  religions."  This  is  the  pro- 
position at  which  that  whole  book  aims,     in  the  managemeat  of 

t  Oracles  of  Reason,  page  19". 
^^  *  De  Helig.  Gent,  page  218.—"  And  thus,  thougli  not  without  a  nrjanifold 
'*  and  accurate  dissection  and  inspection  of  religion,  I  have  found  those  five 
"  articles,  that  have  already  been  often  quoted,  on  finding  which  I  thought 
*  myself  more  happy  than  any  Archimedes." 


224  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

this  subject  our  author  gives  great  proof  of  diligence,  vast  reading, 
and  much  philological  learning.  He  gives  large  accounts  of  the 
idolatry  of  the  Heathens  and  their  pleas  for  it,  or  rather  of  the 
pleas,  which  our  author  thought  might  be  made  for  it ;  which  has 
given  occasion  to  several  conjectures,  as  to  our  author's  design  in 
that  book,  and  his  other,  writings. 

I  find  a  learned  author  who  has  bestowed  a  few  short  animadver- 
sions on  this  book,  inclined  to  think  it  not  unlikely,  that  Herbert's 
principal  design  was,  if  not  to  justify,  yet  to  excuse  the  idolatry  of 
the  church  of  Rome.*  And  if  one  considers  how  many  pleas 
Herbert  makes  for  the  Gentiles'  idolatry,  and  that  they  aie  gener- 
ally such  as  may  serve  for  the  Romanists'  purpose ;  and  if  it  is 
further  considered,  that  Herbert  elsewhere  seems,  upon  many  oc- 
casions, to  found  the  whole  certainty  of  revelation  upon  the  au- 
thority of  the  church,  and  that  alone,  and  the  vast  power  he  gives 
to  the  church  as  to  the  appointment  of  rtffs,  yea,  and  all  the  ordi- 
7iances  of  worship  ;  if  it  is  further  considered  how  concerned  some 
persons  were  for  an  accommodation  with  the  church  of  Rome  at 
that  time,  when  our  author  wrote,  and  how  far  Herbert  was  con- 
cerned in  that  party,  who  were  striving  for  this  reconciliation  ;  if  I 
say,  all  these  things  are  laid  together,  this  conjecture  will  not  appear 
destitute  of  probability.  I  might  add  to  this,  that  Herbert  makes 
use  of  pleas  not  much  unlike  those  which  aie  used  by  the  church 
of  Rome  to  ishake  Protestants  out  of  their  faith,  that  they  may  at 
length  fall  in  with  the  hifallible  guide.  In  fine,  I  dare  be  bold  to 
undertake  the  maintenance  of  this  against  any  opposer,  that  Her- 
bert's method  followed  out,  will  inevitably  make  the  vjilgar  Atheists  ; 
whether  he  designed  by  this  to  make  them  Papists,  I  know  not, 
nor  shall  I  judge.  How  far  this  conjecture  will  hold,  1  leave  to 
others  to  judg:e.  I  shall  only  add  this  one  thing  more,  that  the 
seeming  opposition  of  Herbert's  design  unto  Popish  principles,  and 
his  thrusts  at  the  Romish  clergy,  will  not  be  sufficient  to  clear  him 
of  all  suspicion  in  this  matter,  with  those  who  have  seriously  pe- 
rused the  books  written  by  Papists  in  disguise,  on  design  to  shake 
the  faith  of  the  vulgar  sort  of  Protestants,  in  some  of  which,  there 
is  as  great  appearance  at  first  view  of  a  designed  oA^erthrow  of  Po- 
pery, and  as  hard  things  said  against  the  Romish  clergy.  Good 
watermen  can  look  one  way  and  row  another.  What  there  was  of 
this,  will  one  day  be  manifest. 

The  Deists  maintain,  that  *'  their  religion,  consisting  of  the 
abovenamed  five  articles  13  sufficient."  It  is  the  avowed  design  of 
Herbert  in  his  book,  to  assert  this  and  prove  it ;  and  yet  he  spends 
it  wholly  in  proving  this  proposition,  "  That  these  five  articles 
did  universally  obtain."      Now  it  scejns  of  importance  to  inquire. 


Abr.1l).  Hejdanus  <lc  O-ig-In^  Erroris,  Lib,  TI.  Cap.  XI.  pcigc  370. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      225 

why  Herbert  should  be  at  so  much  pains  to  prove  this.  How 
does  universal  reception  of  these  articles  establish  his  religion,  and 
of  what  consequence  is  it  to  the  Deists'  cause  ? 

For  clearing  this,  it  must  be  observed,  that  it  is  a  common  reli- 
gion that  Herbert  is  inquiring  after,  which  may  be  equally  useful 
to  all  mankind  ;  and  nothing  can  agree  to  this,  which  is  not  com- 
monly received.  And  Herbert  has  before  laid  down  this  for  a 
principle,  that  the  only  way  to  distinguish  common  notices  from 
these  which  are  not  so,  is  universal  reception.  This  according  to 
him  is  the  only  sure  criterion.  "  Religio  est  notiiia  communis — 
"  Videndum  igiturest,  qucBnam  in  reUgione  ex  consensu  univer- 
"  sali  sunt  agnita :  Universa  conferantur,  qu(B  aiitem  ab  omni- 
"  bus  ianquam  vera  in  reUgione  agnoscuntur,  communes^  notiticz 
*'  habendce  sunt.  Sed  dices  esse  laboris  improbi :  at  alia  ad  veri- 
"  fates  notitiarum  communium  non  superest  via  ;  quas  tamen  ita 
''  magnifacimuSy  ut  in  illis  solis  sapientioi  divince  universalis  ar- 
"  cana  deprehendi  possint."* 

But  to  set  this  matter  in  a  full  light,  I  shall  make  it  appear.  That 
a  failure  in  this  attempt,  to  prove  that  these  were  universally  agreed 
to,  is  inevitably  ruinous  to  the  Deists'  cause  and  plea  for  a  common 
religion ;  though  the  proof  of  this  point  will  be  very  far  from  in- 
ferring that  there  is  a  common  religion,  as  shall  be  cleared  after- 
wards. And  this  will  give  further  light  into  the  reasons  of  Her- 
bert's undertaking. 

To  this  purpose  then  it  is  to  be  observed.  That  the  Deists  be- 
ing agreed  about  the  rejection  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  re- 
velation whereon  it  is  founded,  they  are  for  ever  barred  from  the 
acceptance  of  any  other  revelation  as  the  measure  of  religion,  that 
the  world  knows  :  For  they  own  no  revelation  ever,  had  so  fair  a 
plea,  and  such  probable  grounds  to  support  its  pretensions,  as  the 
Christian  revelation  has.  However  therefore,  the  generality  of  the 
Deists  were  satisfied  to  lay  aside  the  Christian  religion,  which  will 
not  allow  them  that  liberty  in  following  the  courses  that  they  are 
resolved  upon,  without  putting  any  thing  into  its  place  ;  yet  the 
more  sober  sort  saw,  that  to  reject  this  religion  and  put  none  in  its 
place,  would,  by  the  world,  be  counted  plain  Atheism,  which  de' 
servedly  is  odious  in  the  world.  Therefore  they  saw  there  was  a 
necessity  of  substituting  one  in  its  place. 

*  De  Veritate,  pag.  55. "  Religion  i&  a  common  notice,  we  ought  to 

"  see  therefore  what  things  in  religion  are  acknowledged  by  universal  con- 
"  sent.  Let  all  be  gathered  together,  and  those  things  In  religion  which 
"  are  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  true  are  to  be  reckoned  common  notice». 
"  But  you  will  say  that  this  is  a  task  of  immense  labor.  But  no  other  way 
"  remains'for  arriving  at  those  truths  that  may  be  reckoned  common  notice*. 
"  Which,  however,  we  value  so  highly,  that  in  these  alone  the  jiecrets  of 
'*  divine  universal  wisdom  can  be  found." 
^  29 


226  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

Now  since  revelation  was  rejected,  nothing  remained,  but  ta  pre- 
tend, that  reason  was  able  to  supply  the  defect  and  afford  a  suflS- 
cient  religion,  a  religion  that  is  able  to  answer  all  the  purposes  for 
which  others  pretend  revealed  religion  necessary. 

When  once  they  were  come  this  length,  it  was  easy  to  see  that 
it  might  be  inquired.  Whether  this  rational  religion  lay  within  the 
reach  of  every  man's  reason,  or  was  only  to  be  found  out  by  per- 
sons of  learning  ? 

If  it  is  pretended,  that  only  persons  of  learning,  application 
and  imcomraon  abilities,  could  attain  the  discovery  of  this  religion^ 
the  difficulties  whereon  the  pretenders  are  cast,  are  obvious. 

What  shall  then  become  of  their  argument  against  revealed  reli- 
gion, "  that  it  is  not  universal,  that  it  is  not  received  by  all  man- 
kind, that  therefore  it  is  not  attended  with  sufficient  evidence." — 
Upon  this  supposition  there  is  a  fair  ground  for  retorting  the  argu- 
ment, with  no  less,  if  not  more  force,  against  natural  religion. 

Again,  what  shall  become  of  that  plea,  which  they  make  for  na- 
tural religion,  "  that  God  must  provide  all  his  creatures  in  the 
means  necessary  for  attaining  that  happiness  they  are  capable  of?" 
May  they  not,  on  this  supposition,  be  urged,  that,  according  to  if» 
the  generality  are  not  provided  with  such  means  ? 

Nor  will  it  avail  to  pretend,  that  those  who  are  capable  of  this^ 
discovery,  are  obliged  to  teach  others  the  laws  of  nature.  For, 
it  may  be  inquired.  Must  the  people  take  all  on  trust  from  them, 
or  see  with  their  own  eyes  ?  If  they  must  take  all  on  trust,  then  is 
there  not  here  a  fair  occasion  for  charging  priest-craft  upon  them, 
who  blame  it  so  much  in  others  ?  Will  not  this  oblige  our  wits,  men 
of  reason  and  learning,  to  turn  creed  and  syslem-makers  ?  Further,, 
what  will  they  say  of  their  own  neglect,  and  the  neglect  of  the 
learned  world  in  this  matter  ?  How  will  they  reconcile  this  to  the 
notion  of  God's  goodness,  of  which  they  talk  so  much,  to  suspend 
the  happiness  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind  on  their  care  and  dili- 
gence, who  quite  neglect  them,  but  keep  up  their  knowledge,  and 
thereby  expose  the  poor  vulgar  to  inevitable  ruin  ?  Moreover,  if 
they  set  up  for  teachers,  they  must  shew  their  credentials.  Final- 
ly, there  is  no  place,  upon  this  supposition,  left  for  tlie  strongest 
pleas  for  a  sufficient  religion,  that  is  common  to  mankind,  which 
are  taken  from  the  nature  of  God  and  man,  and  their  mutual  rela- 
tion ;  because  all  these  arguments  conclude  equally  for  all  mankind, 
and  so  are  not  adapted  to  assert  some  peculiar  prerogative  in  one 
above  another.  Nor  are  any  able  to  justify  a  claim  to  any  further 
ability  this  way,  than  he  can  satisfy  the  world  of,  by  the  effects  of 
it.  When  a  man  pretends  to  no  other  abilities,  than  such  as  are 
due  to  human  nature,  that  he  is  a  man  is  sufficient  to  justify  his 
claim- 5^  but  if  he  pretends  to  some  eminency  in  natural  or  acquired 
endowments  above  others,  he  must  give  such  proofs  of  it,  as  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        227 

nature  of  the  thing  requires  ;  that  is,  he  must  make  it  appear,  that 
he  has  that  ability,  by  acting  proportionable  to  the  nature  and  de- 
gree of  the  power  that  he  claims  ;  and  further  than  this  is  done,  no 
wise  inan  will  believe  him.  It  will  not  help  them  out  here,  to  say, 
that  they  only  of  better  capacities,  and  who  have  more  leisure,  are 
able  to  discover  this  natural  religion ;  but  the  vulgar  are  capable 
-of  judging  and  seeing  with  their  own  eyes  when  it  is  proposed  : 
For,  besides  that  all  the  former  difficulties,  or  most  of  them  recur 
here,  still  it  may  be  inquired.  Is  this  made  appear  ?  The  difficult- 
ies on  this  side  are  unsurmountable. 

Wherefore  of  necessity,  they  must  maintain, "  that  every  man 
is  able  to  find  out  and  discover  what  is  sufficient  for  himself  in  mat- 
ters of  religion."  But  now  when  this  is  asserted,  if  the  experi- 
ence of  the  world  lie  against  them,  and  it  be  found,  as  is  connnonly 
supposed,  that  many  nations,  nay,  the  far  greater  part  of  mankind^ 
had  no  such  religion,  this  will  much  prejudge  their  opinion,  about 
every  man's  having  this  ability  of  finding  out  a  religion,  or  as  much 
in  religion  as  was  necessary  to  his  own  happiness. 

How  will  they  persuade  the  world  of  such  an  ability,  if  experi- 
ence is  not  made  appear  to  favor  them  ?  It  is  commonly  thought, 
and  we  have  made  it  appear,  that  the  wisest  men,  when  they  essay- 
ed what  power  they  had  of  this  sort,  foully  blundered,  and  fell 
short  of  satisfying  either  themselves  or  others  ;  and  that  the  world 
generally  acknowledged  the  want  of  any  experience  of  this  ability, 
and  therefore  looked  after  revelations  with  that  greediness,  that  laid 
them  open  to  be  imposed  on,  by  eveiy  vain  pretender  to  superna- 
tural revelation. 

Now  if  things  are  allowed  to  be  thus,  how  shall  they  prove  man 
possessed  of  this  power,  if  they  are  cut  off  from  the  advantage  of 
the  usual  fountain  of  conviction,  in  matters  of  this  nature  ?  What 
is  the  way  we  come  to  know,  that  all  men  have  a  power  of  under- 
standing, or  that  such  a  power  is  due  to  his  nature  ?  Is  it  not  hence, 
that  wherever  we  meet  with  men,  we  find  them  exerting  the  acts 
of  understanding  ?  And  the  like  may  be  said  of  his  other  powers. 
Now  if  it  is  once  admitted,  that  there  are  single  persons,  nay, 
whole  nations,  yea  more,  many  nations  that  have  no  experience  of 
this  pretended  ability,  in  reference  to  matters  of  religion,  how  will 
they  ever  be  able  to  persuade  the  world  that  all  men  have  it  ? 
More  especially,  if  it  be  admitted,  that  the  learned  themselves 
were  here  defective,  as  to  that  which  persons  of  the  meanest  abili- 
ties and  least  leisure  are  supposed  able  for  :  this  will  look  very  ill, 
if  a  man  who  toils  all  his  days  at  the  plough  and  harrow,  could 
make  this  discovery,  how  could  a  man  of  learning  and  application 
find  it  hard. 

In  a  word,  if  things  are  thus  stated,  as  is  generally  supposed, 
and  has  been  already  proven,  and  shall  be  further  cleared  anon, 


228  AN  INQUIRY  if^ITO  THE 

then  there  is  little  left  them  to  pretend  for  this  natural  and  univer- 
Bal  ability  of  mankind  in  matters  of  religion,  if  not  perhaps,  to  tell 
tis  a  story  of  God's  being  obliged,  in  point  of  goodness,  to  endow 
all  mankind  with  a  capacity,  whereof  there  is  no  evidence  ui  expe- 
rience ;  yea,  which  the  experience  of  the  world  plainly  declares 
them  to  want.  But  this  will  not  easily  take  with  men  of  sobriety 
and  sense :  For  it  is  not  more  evident,  that  there  is  a  God,  than, 
that  this  God  must  do  whatever  is  proper  and  suitable  for  him  to 
do  :  And  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  not  neccssari/  or  proper  for 
him  to  do  any  thing  that  really  he  has  not  done.  If  then,  any  shall 
pretend  it  becoming  or  necessary  for  God  to  do  any  thing,  which 
experience  shews  he  has  not  done,  he  will  be  so  far  from  obtaining 
credit  with  the  world,  that  on  the  contrary  he  will  justly  fall  under 
the  suspicion  of  Atheism,  and  an  evil  design  against  God.  For  to 
say,  that  God  in  point  of  goodness,  was  obliged  to  do  this,  which 
experience  shews  he  has  not  done  is  plainly  to  say,  God  acted  not 
as  became  him.  There  was  therefore  a  plain  necessity  of  under- 
taking to  prove  experience  on  their  side,  if  Deism  was  to  be  sup- 
ported. 

If  the  common  apprehensions  of  men,  who  enjoy  the  light  of 
Christianity,  with  respect  to  the  state  of  the  Heathen  world,  are 
well  grounded,  all  the  pretences  of  Deists  as  to  the  suflficiency  of 
natural  religion  are  forever  ruined,  and  quite  subverted. 

It  was  but  necessary  therefore,  that  the  learned  Herbert,  who 
undertook  to  maintain  the  cause,  should  attempt  to  shew,  that  ex- 
perience was  on  their  side,  and  that  in  fact  a  religion  in  itself  suffi" 
cient  did  universally  obtain.  And  he  had  the  more  reason  to  be 
concerned  in  this  matter,  because  he  avows  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
without  a  supposition  of  such  an  universal  religion  as  the  Deists  do 
plead  for,  Providence  cannot  be  maintained.  "  Et  quidem,  says 
"  he,  qmim  media,  ad  vidum  vestitumque  hie  accommodata  suppe- 
"  ditarit  cimctis  natura  sive  provideutia  rerum  communis,  suspi- 
*'  cari  non  potui,  eundem  Deum,  sive  ex  natura,  sive  ex  gratia  in 
*'  suppeditandis  ad  beatiorem  hoc  nostro  statum  mediis  ulli  homi- 
*'  num  deesse  posse,  vet  velle,  adeo  ut  licet  mediis  illis  parum  rede 
"  vel  feliciter  usi  sint  Gentiles,  hand  ita  tamen  per  Deum  opti- 
"  7mim  maximum  steterit,  quo  minus  salvifierent.'"^  And  as  it 
is  clear  that  this  author  thinks,  that  Providence  is  not  to  be  main- 
tained without  an  universal  religion  ;  so  it  is  sufficiently  evident, 

*  De  Relig.  Gentil.  Cap.  1.  pag.  4.——*'  And  indeed  as  the  common  na- 
"  ture  or  providence  of  things  here,  has  furnished  all  men  with  full  means  of 
"  food  and  cloathing-,  I  could  not  suspact  that  the  same  God,  either  from 
"  his  nature  or  from  grace,  could  or  would  be  wanting  to  any  of  mankind  in 
"  supplying  him  with  the  means  of  attaining  a  more  happy  state  than  the 
"  present,  so  that  although  the  Heathens  used  those  means  unskilfully  or  un- 
''  h:ippily,  yet  the  best  and  greatest  God  was  not  to  be  blamed  for  their  not 
^^  being  saved." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     229 

that  this  universal  religion  is  not  to  be  maintained,  if  experience 
lies  against  it. 

Here  then  was  a  plain  necessity  for  undertaking  this  argument, 
and  proving,  or  at  least  pretending  to  prove,  that  all  mankind  had 
a  sufficient  religion,  or  were  able  to  know  all  that  was  necessary. — 
For  we  see  the  whole  frame  of  Deism  falls  to  the  ground,  if  this  is 
overthrown.  This  theref:>re  was  an  undertaking  worthy  of  our 
noble  author's  great  parts,  long  experience,  great  charity  to  man- 
kind, and  the  great  concern  he  professes  to  find  in  himself  for  the 
vindication  of  Providenccv 

And  sure  if  such  a  man,  after  so  much  pains,  has  failed  in  the 
proof  of  this  point,  any  that  ma}'^  succeed  him,  may  justly  despair 
of  success.  He  read  all  the  Heathen  authors  to  find  this  univer- 
sal reUgion,  and  he  was  as  willing  and  desirous  to  find  it  as  any 
man.  And  he  has  given  in  this  learned  book  evidence  enough  of 
his  reading. 

But  since  no  religion  was  to  be  admitted,  save  that  whereon  all 
men  were  agreed,  it  was  wisely  done  by  our  author,  that  he  reduc- 
ed this  universal  creed  to  a  few  articles.  For  one  who  knew  so 
much  of  the  state  of  the  world,  could  not  but  see,  that  they  were 
not  very  many  wherein  they  Avere  agreed. 

Well,  he  undertakes  and  goes  through  with  the  work,  and  con- 
cludes with  that  memorable  triumph  above  mentioned ;  "  Atque 
"  ita  (sed  non  sine  vnultiplici,  accurataque  religionum  turn  dissec- 
"  tione,  turn  inspedioiiej  qiiinqiie  illos  articulos,  scepius  jam  ad- 
*'  diidos  deprehendi.  Qnibus  etiam  inventis  me  feliciorem  quovis 
"  Archimede  existimavi." 

But  one  might  possibly  ask.  How  it  could  cost  our  author  so 
much  labor  and  pains  to  find  out  this  religion,  and  to  sever  the  ar- 
ticles belonging  to  it  from  others,^  with  which  they  were  intermix- 
ed, when  every  illiterate  man  must  be  supposed  able  to  do  this  ? 

However,  if  our  author  is  not  belied  by  common  fame,  he  re- 
pented, that  he  had  spent  his  time  so  ill  in  contributing  so  far  to 
the  advancement  of  irreligion  ;  though  others  contradict  this  and 
tell  us,  that  dying  he  left  this  advice  to  his  children, — "  They 
*•  talk  of  trusting  in  Christ  for  salvation  ;  but  I  would  have  you  be 
"  virtuous,  and  trust  to  your  virtue,  to  make-  you  happy." 

Whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine 
our  authoi's  arguments. 


230  AN  LNQUIRY  INTO  THE 


CHAP.    XIV. 

Wherein  it  is  inquired.  Whether  Herbert  has  proved  that  his  five 
Articles  did  universally  obtain  ? 

WE  have  heard  our  author's  five  articles  above ;  he  pretends  to 
make  it  appear,  that  they  were  every  where  received  ;  we  shall 
now  inquire,  Whether  the  arguments  adduced  by  him  do  evince 
this  ?  and  then  in  the  next  place,  we  shall  see  whether  it  is  indeed 
true.  And  for  method's  sake,  we  shall  speak  of  every  article 
apart,  and  dissect  and  inspect  his  book,  to  find  all  that  he  offer*, 
which  has  the  least  appearance  of  proof. 

ARTICLE     1. 

There  is  One  Supreme  God. 

That  which  our  author  pretends  to  prove  as  to  this  article,  is, 
that  it  was  generally  owned  by  all  nations,  that  there  is  one  Su" 
preme  Being,  and  that  this  /Supreme  Being,  whom  they  owned^ 
was  the  same  whom  we  adore.  We  are  not  now  to  dispute,  whe- 
ther this  aiticle  may  be  known  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  nor  whe- 
ther some  particular  persons  went  not  a  great  way  in  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  it.  This  we  have  before  granted  :  But  the  question 
is,  Whether  all  nations  agreed  in  this,  that  there  is  one  Supreme 
God,  and  he  the  very  same  whom  we  adore  ?  Let  us  hear  our  au- 
thor, "  Quamvis  enim  de  aliquibus  alijs  Dei,  sive  attributis,  sive 
*'  muneribus  disceptatio  inter  veteres  esset,  uti  suo  loco  monstra- 
*'  bimus  ;  summnm  tamen  aliquem  extare,  and  semper  extitisse 
"  Deiim,  neque  apud  sapientes,  neqiie  apud  insipientes  dubium 
''  (puto)  fuitJ'"^  And  afterwards,  when  he  thinks  the  first  part 
of  his  article  sufficiently  cleared,  he  proceeds  to  the  second  part 
of  it,  "  Reliquum  est,  ut  Deum  summum  Gentilium,  eundum  ac 
nostrum  esse  probemus.^f  Thus  we  see  what  our  author  pretends. 
Whether  he  has  proved  this,  we  are  now  to  inquire.  He  has  not 
digested  his  arguments,  nor  cast  them  into  any  such  mould,  as 
might  make  it  obvious  wherein  the  force  of  them  lies,  and  there- 
fore we  must  be  at  pains  to  scrape  together,  whatever  is  uTiy  where 

*  De  Relig'.  Gent.  pag.  158. — "  For  although  there  may  have  been  dis- 
"  putes  among-  the  ancients  about  certain  other  attributes  or  offices  of  God, 
*'  as  we  shall  shew  in  its  own  place,  yet  it  was  never  doubted,  I  think  ei- 
"  ther  among  the  wise  or  the  unwise,  that  some  supreme  God  existed,  and 
"  had  always  existed." 

t  Ibid,  166. "  It  remains  to  prove  that  the  Supreme  God  of  the   Hea- 

"  thfus  was  the  same  as  ours." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      231 

through  his  book  dropped,  that  may  contribute  in  the  least  toward 
the  strengthening  of  his  cause  ;  and  we  shall  not  omit  any  thing 
willingly,  that  has  the  least  appearance  of  force. 

The  first  observation  our  author  insists  on  to  this  purpose  is, 
«  That  the  Gentiles  did  not  intend  the  same  by  the  name  of  Gorf, 
that  we  now  do.  We  by  that  name  design  the  Supreme,  Eternal, 
Independent  Being ;  whereas  they  intend  no  more  than  any  virtue 
or  power  superior  to  man,  on  which  man  did  any  way  depend."  Id 
omne  Deutn  vocitarurd  quod  vim  aliquam  eximiam  in  inferiora^ 
sed  in  homines  pnccipue  ederef-X  This  he  frequently  inculcates, 
and  tells  us  in  the  first  page  of  his  book,  that  the  observation  of 
this,  was  that  which  inclined  him  to  think,  or  presume  the  Gentiles 
not  chargeable  with  that  gross  Polytheism,  with  which  most  do, 
and  he  himself  had,  upon  a  slight  view  of  their  religion,  well  nigh 
once  concluded  them  chargeable. 

If  the  Gentiles  meant  the  same  by  the  word  God,  which  we  do, 
no  doubt  they  stand  chargeable  with  the  most  gross,  unaccountable, 
absurd  and  ridiculous  Polytheism  imaginable  :  For  scarcely  is  there 
any  thing  animate  or  inanimate,  but  by  some  way  or  other  became 
deified.  Quicquid  humus,  pelagus,  caelum,  mirabile  gignunf,  id 
dixere  deos,  colles,  fretUy  Jiumina,  Jlammas.'^ 

But  our  author  is  not  willing  to  admit  that  tliey  were  so  absurd  ; 
and  to  induce  us  to  favorable  sentiments,  he  hay  blessed  us  with 
this  observation.  That  when  they  called  those  creatures  animate 
and  inanimale  Gods,  they  meant  no  such  thing  as  we  do  by  that 
name.  Well,  if  we  should  grant  that  the  wiser  sort,  at  least,  or  per- 
haps even  the  vulgar  too,  did  sometimes  so  underiiland  the  word,  as 
he  alleges,  will  that  serve  his  purpose,  and  satisfy  him  ?  Nay,  by  no 
means,  unless  we  grant  him,  that  they  always  so  understood  the 
word,  save  when  they  spoke  of  the  One  true  God.  But  this  is 
too  much  to  be  granted,  unless  he  prove  it ;  especially  if  w^e  are 
able  to  evince,  that  not  a  few,  both  wise  and  umvise,  believed  that 
there  were  more  than  One  Eternal,  Independent  Being  :  and  pos- 
sibly this  may  be  made  appear  aftenrard.  A  learned  authoi-,  in 
reproach  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman  learning,  says,  "  That  set- 
"  ting  aside  what  they  learned  out  of  Egypt,  they  could  never  by 
"  themselves  determine  whether  there  were  mam/  Gods  or  but 
onf."t 

The  next  thing  our  author  insists  on  to  this  purpose,  is,  "  That 
different  names  do  not  always  point  out  different  gods,  but  differ- 
ent virtues  of  the  same  God."     "  Tot  Dei  appellationes,  quot 

i  De  Rellg'.  Gent.  pag.  13. — "  They  called  all  that  God,  which  produced  any 
**  considerable  effect  on  inferior  things,  but  especially  upon  men." 

*  Aurel.  contr.  Sym.  Lib.  I. — "  Whatever  wonderfvil   thing  the  earth,  the 
sea,  or  sky  produced,  that  they  called  gods — hills,  seas,  rivers,  fire." 
t  Wolscly'-s  Scripture  Belief,  page  110. 


232  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  munera,adeoq  ;  si  triginta  milia  Deum  nominal  quod  ab  CEno- 
"  moo  ^  Hesiodo  in  &toyoyix  perhibetur  supponat  quispia?n,  ^ 
"  tot  ejus  mimera  dari,  fatendnm  est,''*  says  Seneca,  quoted  by 
our  author.J  And  consequentially  to  this,  the  same  Seneca  tells 
us,  "  Sapientes  nequaquam  Jovem  eum  intellexisse,  qui  in  Capi- 
*'  tolio  aut  alijs  templis  fulraine  armatus  cerneretur,  sed  potiua 
"  Mentem  Animunque  existimasse  omnium  custodem,  universiq  ; 
"  administratorem,  qui  banc  rerum  universalitatem  condiderit,  ac 
"  eandem  nutu  suo  gubernet,  ac  propterea  divina  quaeq  ;  nomina 
"  ei  convenire.  Itaq  ;  optimo  jure  fatum  appellari  posse,  ut  a 
"  quo  ordo  seriesve  causarum  inter  se  aptarum  dependeat.  Ita  is 
"  Providentiam  dicit,  quum  ipse  provideat  ut  omnia  perpetuo  ac 
"  perenni  quodam  cursu,  ad  finera  ad  quem  distinata  sunt,  currunt : 
"  Naturam  quoque  nuncupari,  ex  eo  enim  cuncta  nascuntur,  per 
"  eum  quicquid  vitae  est  particeps,  vivet :  Mundi  quin  etiam  no- 
"  men  illi  congruere.  Quicquid  sub  aspectum  cadit,  ipse  est,  qui 
"  seipso  nititur,  &  omnia  ambitu  suo  complectitur,  universaque 
"  numine  suo  complet."*  To  the  same  purpose  speaks  Servius 
of  all  the  Stoicks,  quoted  likewise  by  our  author.f  The  plain 
English  of  all  is,  he  would  persuade  us  that  by  these  testimonies 
he  has  proved,  that  the  Gentiles,  when  they  attributed  the  name 
GOD  to  so  many  things,  intended  no  more,  but  to  set  out  so  ma- 
ny different  virtues,  which  all  resided  in  the  same  GOD. 

As  to  this,  Ave  may  grant,  that  our  author  has  indeed  proved, 
That  different  names  do  not  always  point  out  different  gods  ;  for 
he  has  told  us  that  each  of  their  gods  had  many  different  names. 
But  this  will  do  him  no  service,  if  we  grant  not,  that  different 
names  never  point  out  different  gods.  But  how  shall  we  do  this, 
when  our  author  has  shewed  us,  that  many  nations  worshipped 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  and  thought  them  gods,  yea,  distinct 
ones  too,  different,  in  their  natures  as  well  as  natncs.     Each  of 


+  Seneca  Lib.  5.  Cap.  17.  Herbert  de  Relig.  Gent.  pag.  13. — "  We  must 
"  confess  that  there  are  as  many  names  of  God,  as  there  are' offices,  so  that  if 
"  any  one  suppose  that  there  are  thirty  thousand  different  names  of  god's,  as 
"  is  related  by  Oenomaus  and  Hesiod  in  his  Theogony,  we  must  acknowledge 
*'  that  there  are  likewise  as  many  offices  of  the  Deity." 

*  He:-b.  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  47- "  Wise  men  did  not  mean  by   Jupi- 

"  ter,  that  statue  that  is  seen  in  the  Capitol  and  other  temples,  armed  with 
"  thunderbolts  ;  but  rather  thought  that  that  INIind  and  Soul  was  Jupiter, 
"  which  was  the  Guardian  and  Governor  of  the  Universe,  who  formed  this 
"  whole  v.'orld,  and  governs  it  by  his  nod,  and  that  all  divine  names  agree 
"  to  him.  He  may  therefore  be  very  justly  called  Fate,  as  on  him  the  order 
"  and  series  of  connected  causes  depends.  Thus  too  he  may  be  called  Provi- 
"  dence,  as  he  provides  that  all  things  should  tend  to  tlie  end  for  which  they 
"  were  destined,  in  a  constant  and  perpetual  course.  He  may  likewise  be 
"  called  Nature,  for  all  things  arise  from  him,  and  he  gives  life  to  all  that 
"  lives.  Nay,  even  the  name  of  World  may  agree  to  him,  for  whatever  is 
"  visible  is  llimself,  who  depends  on  himself,  surrounds  all  things  v/ith  his 
"  circumference,  and  fills  all  things  with  his  divine  presence." 

t  De  llelig.  Gentil.  pag.  ST. 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      233 

them  indeed  had  different  names,  nay  each  of  them  had  many 
names,  titles  or  eulogies  heaped  on  them  by  their  fond  worship- 
pers, who  no  doubt  fancied,  that  their  gods  were  smitten  with  that 
same  vanity,  wherewith  they  themselves  were  tainted ;  which  yet 
as  learned  Rivet  observes,  had  a  dangerous  effect  upon  the  vulgar 
in  process  of  time  :  for  they  were  not  so  quick  in  their  observa- 
tions as  our  author.  "  Coacervatis  enim  elog-iis,  tituUsque  conges- 
"  tis,  capi  mvmen  putabant,  maximoque  inde  (iffici  honore  ;  ita  ut 
"  tandeni  qme  diversn  iantum  iiomina  superstitionis  fueranty 
"  grassanfe  errore,  dlversa  mi7nina  haberentKr.^^'^ 

Further,  we  know  full  well  that  some  of  the  more  wise  and 
learned  men,  especially  after  the  light  of  the  gospel  began  to  shine 
through  the  world,  began  to  be  ashamed  of  their  religion,  and  es- 
pecially the  number  of  their  gods,  and  to  use  the  same  shifts  to 
palliate  the  foolish  and  wild  Polytheism,  which  the  gospel  so  fully 
exposed  :  and  particularly  Seneca,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Paul,  (and  by  some,  upon  what  ground  I  now  enquire  not,  is  said 
to  have  conversed  with  him)  and  others  of  the  Stoicks  steered  this 
course,  to  vindicate  their  religion  againstt  he  assaults  of  the  Chris- 
tians. But  it  is  as  true,  this  w  us  a  foolish  attempt,  and  its  success 
I  cannot  better  express,  than  in  the  words  of  the  learned  and  ex- 
cellent Dr.  Owen :  "  Postquam  autem  severius  paulo  inter  nonnul- 
"  los  philosophari  cceptum  est,  atque  limatiores  de  natura  divina 
"  opiniones  inter  plurimos  obtinuerant,  sapientes  pudere  coeperunt 
"  eorum  deorum,  quos  protulerant  ferrea  secula,  ignorantia  and  tene- 
"  bris  tota  devoluta.  Omnia  ideo,  quae  de  diis  fictitis,  Jove  scil  : 
*'  totoque  sacro  Helenismi  choragio,  vulgo  celebrata  erant,  res  na- 
"  turales  adumbrasse  apud  antiques  Mw^aAoyss  contenderunt. 
"  Theologium  banc  MvSiKijv  vocant,  quam  nihil  aliud  fuisse  aiunt, 
'*  quam  naturae  doctrinam."f  And  in  some  passages  after,  he  shew^ 
the  vanity  of  this  attempt.  "  Postquam  enim  evangelii  lumen  us- 
*'  que  adeo  radiis  suis  terrarum  orbem  perculisset,  rubeescenda 
''  veterls  superstitionis  insania  apud  ipsum  vulgus  in  contemptuni 
*'  venerit,  acutiores  sophistae,  qoud  dixi,  quo  stultitiam  istani  co- 

*  Ad.  Hos.  2.  8.  Referente  Owen  Theolog.  pag.  189.—"  For  they  thought 
"  ihat  the  Deity  was  charmed  with  encomiums  and  titles  heaped  one  above 
"  another,  and  received  great  honor  from  thence,  so  that  at  length  those 
"  different  names,  devised  by  superstition,  by  the  progress  of  error,  came  to 
"  be  reckoned  different  deities. 

t  Ubi  supra  pag.  196. — "  But  after  philosophy  began  te  be  more  seriously 
"  cultivated,  and  more  correct  opinions  concerning  the  divine  nature  had 
"  taken  place  among  the  generality,  tlie  wise  men  began  to  be  ashamed  of 
"  those  gods,  which  had  been  invented  in  the  iron  ages,  that  were  entirely  in- 
"  volved  ill  ignorance  and  darkness,  and  therefore  they  maintained  that  all 
"  things  that  had  been  commonly  reported  of  the  fictitious  gods,  vi2.  Jupiter 
"  and  all  the  hierarchy  of  Greece,  signilled  only  certain  natural  things  in  the 
"  sense  of  the  ancient  Mythologists.  And  they  called  this  ^Mythological  Di- 
"  vinity,  which  they  said  was  nothing  else  than  the  knowledge  of  nature , 
*'  veiled  bv  allegory." 

80 


234  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  lore  novo  fucutam,  amabilem  rcdderent,  figmenlo  huic  (N.  B.) 
"  ciii  adversalur  omnis  historise  fides,  pertinacissime  adhaeserunt. 
"  Iiiio,  lit  obi(er  dicam  innovala  est  primis  ecclesise  temporibus 
"  apud  ipsos  Gentiles,  tota  philosophandi  ratio."*  Any  one  that 
Tvould  desire  to  see  the  folly  of  this  observation  exposed,  on  which 
our  author  lays  so  much  stress,  may  peruse  that  chapter,  whence 
these  words  are  quoted.f  Nor  is  this  more  than  what  Velleius 
speaks  of  Zeno  a  Stoick  and  others,  "Cum  Hesiodi  Qcoyoviav 
*'  interpretatur,  tollit  omnino,  (N.  B.)  usitatas  perceptasque,  cog- 
"  nitiones  deorum."J  &c. 

But  were  this  true,  which  those  quotations  pretend,  it  will  not 
yet  come  up  to  our  author's  purpose  ;  for  these  quotations  tell  ua 
not  that  all  the  world  Avere  of  this  mind,  but  only  the  wise  men  ; 
and  I  fear  that  this  too  needs  a  restriction.  Now  this  comes  not 
near  to  the  point.  When  our  author  has  occasion  to  notice  some 
absurd  practices  or  opinions  that  are  against  him,  he  rejects  them 
with  this  :  "  Qnod  a  paucis  soluinmodo  siiperstitiose  factum,  non 
"  sails  in  religionem  asserilnr.  Nos  autem  hand  alia  qiuim 
"  qmc  omnes,  vel  plerique  saltern  cohiere,  sub  religionis  tifulo  po~ 
"  jn'mMS-ll  Now  let  this  be,  as  it  is,  the  state  of  the  question,  and 
what  some  of  the  wiser  did,  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose  ;  and 
this  indeed  is  the  point.  In  fine,  we  doubt  not  before  we  have 
done,  from  our  author's  own  book,  to  demonstrate,  that  what  he 
aims  at  in  this  observation,  and  consequently  all  the  story  of  the 
wj/stick  theology  of  the  Heathens,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  all 
faith  of  history,  which  makes  us  as  sure  of  this,  as  they  can  of 
any  thing,  that  many  nations,  nay  most  nations,  nay  most  wise  men 
held  a  plurality  of  gods,  even  in  the  sense  that  our  author  would  de- 
ny. The  next  observation  hem  akes,  is  a-kin  to  the  former.  He,  fol- 
lowing Vossin??,  OS  he  tells  us,  divides  all  the  Gentiles'  worship  into 
proper,  symbolical  and  niixt.§  Proper  is,  when  the  true  God,  or 
the  sun,  or  the  moon  is  worshipped  as  the  true  God,  and  the  wor- 

*  Ubt  supva  pag-.  198.^ — "  For  after  tlie  liglit  of  the  gospel  had  so  far  en- 
"  lightened  the  world  with  its  rays,  that  the  shameful  madness  of  the  an-. 
"  cient  siiperstilioii  had  fallen  into  contempt,  even  among  the  vulgar,  the 
"  more  acute  sophists,  as  I  said  before  in  order  to  render  that  foolery  amia^ 
"  ble,  by  giving-  it  a  new  colour,  adhered  most  obstinately  to  this  fiction, 
"  thougii  oijposite  to  all  the  faith  of  history,  nay,  we  may  observe  in  passing, 
"  that  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  the  manner  of  philosophising  among 
"  the  Heathens  underwent  a  total  change." 

j  Owen  ubi  supra.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  6. 

I  Cicero  de  Xat,  Door.  Lib.  1. — "  When  he  interprets  the  Theogony  of  He- 
"  siod  he  entirely  overturns  altogether  the  usual  and  received  traditions  con-. 
"•'  cei'ning  the  gods." 

II  De  Relig.  Gentil.  pag.  12. — "  What  was  done  superstltiously  by  a  few, 
'■  only,  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  general  religion,  but  we  place  un^ 
"  der  the  title  of  religion  no  other  things  than  those  which  all,  or  at  least 
*'  the  most  part  practised." 

§  Ibid,  pag.  183. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      2a> 

jjhip  is  designed  ultimately  to  terminate  in  their  honor :  Symbolic 
is,  when  the  true  God  is  worshipped  in  the  sun,  as  an  image,  repre- 
jsentation  or  symbol  of  him  ;  then  the  worship  is  not  designed  only, 
jior  mainly  to  terminate  on  the  sun,  but  on  the  true  God.  As  for 
the  mixt,  we  are  not  concerned  to  speak  of  it.  He  would  every 
where  have  us  to  believe,  that  all  their  worship  was  symbolical, 
and  as  such  he  frequently  seems  to  justify  and  avouch  it  as  rea- 
sonable, which  the  Papists  will  readily  thank  him  fqr  ;  and  he  ex- 
pressly asserts  this,  that  all  "  their  worship,  save  w  hat  was  direct- 
ly addressed  to  the  true  God,"  which  I  believe  was  very  little, 
"  was  symbolic."  Atque  cultum  proprhim  milium  fiiisse  olim 
pczrterquam  summi  Dei,  videtur.'^  It  is  well  that  he  expresses 
this  position  modestly,  as  being  conscious  how  great  ground  others 
will  see  to  judge  otherwise.  And  the  reason  that  follows,  drawn 
from  the  alledged  evidences  of  the  thing,  we  shall  have  under  con- 
sideration anon.  But  toward  the  close  of  this  book,  he  calls  them 
ignoranies,  or  scioli,  that  believe  not  as  he  believes  in  this  matter. 
But  it  should  be  expected,  that  when  he  advances  such  a  bold 
position,  and  is  so  hard  on  them  that  dissent  from  him,  he  would 
give  good  proof  of  it ;  but  if  any  expect  that,  he  will  find  himself 
deceived.  I  find  indeed  a  passage  quoted  with  a  high  commenda- 
tion to  this  purpose.  "  Atque  hie  de  cultu  dei  symholico  preclar^ 
*'  urn  locum  ex  Maximo  Tyrio,  Dissert,  38.  quem  adducit  Vos- 
"  sius,  supprimere  non  possum.  Barbari  omnes  pariter  Deum 
"  esse  intelligunt ;  const ituere  interim  sibi  alia  atque  alia  signa  : 
"  Ignem  Persce  imaginem  qiice,  unum  duret  diem,  vorax  quid  Sr 
"  insatiabile,  sic  Maximi  verba  vertit  Fossms."f  But  what  is 
all  this  to  the  purpose  ?  Doth  this  quotation  from  a  Platonic  phi- 
losopher, who  lived  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christ,  when 
the  gospel  had  overspread  the  whole  world,  and  chased  the  Pagan 
darkness  away,  and  made  them  ashamed  of  their  old  opinions,  and 
improven  reason,  prove  any  thing  ?  To  spend  time  on  this,  after 
what  has  been  said  above,  were  to  trifle  with  a  witness.  The  Deists 
have  not,  nor  can  they  ever  prove  the  truth  of  this  bold  assertion ; 
the  falsehood  of  which  we  may  detect  before  we  have  done.  But 
hitherto  our  author  has  only  used  his  shield ;  v,'e  must  next  see 
whether  his  sjvord  be  not  of  better  metal.  All  that  has  been 
Iritherto  said,  is  only  a  defensative  for  the  Heathen's  opinions  and 

*  De  Relip.  Gent.  pag.  226. — "  And  there  seems  to  have  been  no  proper 
"  worship  of  old,  except  that  of  the  Supreme  God." 

t  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  70. — "  And  here  I  cannot  suppress  a  famous  place  in 
**  Maximus  Tyrius,  Diss.  38,  which  is  quoted  by  Vossius.  All  the  barbarians 
*'  believe  equally  that  there  is  a  God,  but  set  up  different  signs  or  representa- 
"  tions  of  him.  For  example,  the  Persians  chuse  fire,  an  image  that  lasts 
"  but  one  day,  something  voracious  and  insatiable.  Thus  does  Vossius  reii- 
"  der  the  words  of  Masimus.? 


236  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

practice :  We  must  now  see  by  what  arguments  he  proves  that 
his  first  article  did  universally  obtain. 

His  first  argument  leans  upon  a  few  quotations  from  some  Hea- 
thens, who  assert,  that  there  is  one  Supreme  Being,  such  as  Hiero- 
cles,  Zoroaster,  and  others,  some  of  old  and  some  of  late. 

But  all  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  :  For  were  there  twenty 
times  more  who  said  so,  this  will  not  prove  the  point  he  is  obliged 
to  make  good.  He  has  undertaken  to  shew  that  it  was  not  doubt- 
ed among  wise  or  unAvise,  that  there  was  one  supreme  God,  and  he 
the  same  whom  we  adore.  Now  what  is  this  to  the  purpose,  to 
bring  the  opinions  of  a  few  learned  men,  without  telling  what  were 
the  opinions  of  the  nations  or  times  where  they  lived,  or  of  the 
world  at  large  ?  It  is  not  the  question,  What  Seneca,  Zoroaster, 
Plato,  and  twenty  more,  thought,  nay  what  whole  nations  besides 
thought  ?  but,  What  the  whole  world  thought  in  this  matter  ? 
This  the  argument  touches  not. 

His  next  aigument  is  drawn  from  tlie  confession  of  several  di- 
vines. With  this  he  begins  his  fifteenth  chapter,  and  frequently 
speaks  of  it.  But  this  says  no  more  for  him,  than  other,  and  per- 
haps more  considerable  testimonies,  do  against  him.  Beside?, 
since  he  has  not  condescended  on  the  persons  who  fall  in  with  him 
here,  nor  their  words,  we  must  leave  him  ;  as  we  are  not  concern- 
ed with  them,  nor  obliged  to  follow  them  further,  than  they  do  the 
truth. 

But  that  Avhich  he  lays  the  most  stress  on,  is  the  supposed  evi- 
dence of  the  thing.*  This  he  frequently  insists  on,  as  to  all  his 
articles  :  and  its  force  amounts  to  this — -It  is  so  clear  that  there  is 
one  only  Supreme  Being,  and  that  the  sun  nor  no  other  is  he,  that 
it  could  not  escape  the  most  dull  and  unthinking. 

But  here  our  author  puts  me  in  mind  of  the  companions  of 
Christopher  Columbus,  who  first  discovered  America,  about  the 
year  1592;  they  were  one  day  at  table  with  him,  and  began  to 
depieciate  and  undervalue  the  discovery  he  had  made,  telling  him 
how  easily  others  might  have  done  it.  Well,  says  he,  I  hold  you 
a  wager,  I  do  what  none  of  you  shall  do,  and  presently  calling  for 
an  egg,  says  he,  none  of  you  can  make  that  egg  stand  straight  on 
the  table  ;  which  when  they  had  essayed  to  no  purpose,  he  takes 
it,  and  crushes  the  end  of  it  a  little,  and  then  it  stood  easily ; 
which,  when  they  all  said  it  was  easy  to  do :  Well,  says  he,  it  is 
very  true,  ye  can  do  it  aftei-  I  have  done  it.  It  is  easy  to  sec 
things  after  they  are  discovered  to  our  hand,  whicl:  we  would  other- 
wise never  have  thought  of.  All  the  world  w«s  not  so  discernirrg 
as  our  author  was,  and  his  followers  pretended  to  be,  and  he  has 
given  us  sufficient  proof  of  that  in  liis  book,  and  I  truly  wonder 


De  Rcli^.  Gent.  pag.  38?,  166. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      237 

■with  what  face  any  man  could  make  use  of  this  argument  after  he 
had  read,  much  more  after  he  had  writ  such  a  book,  wherein  it  is 
made  clear  as  the  day,  that  many  nations  believed  no  other  God 
but  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  as  we  shall  shew  afterwards.  And  I 
must  take  the  freedom  to  say,  that  our  noble  and  learned  author, 
with  the  rest  of  the  Deists,  and  all  the  philosophers,  who  lived 
since  the  gospel  obtained  in  the  world,  owe  more  to  the  Christian 
religion,  than  they  have  the  ingenuity  to  own.  What  they  think 
so  clear,  when  revelation  has  not  only  taught  them  the  truths,  but 
the  grounds  of  them,  was  dark  not  only  to  the  vulgar,  but  to  the 
wise  of  old.  I  cannot  better  conclude  this,  than  by  transcribing 
a  passage  of  the  ingenious  Mr.  Locke's  Essay  on  Human  Under- 
standing— "  Had  you  or  I,  (says  he,  speaking  about  innate  ideas) 
"  been  born  at  the  bay  of  Seldania,  possibly  our  thoughts  and  no- 
"  tions  had  not  exceeded  these  brutish  ones  of  the  Hottentots  that 
"  inhabit  there  ;  and  had  the  Virginian  king,  Apochancana  been 
"  educated  in  England,  he  had,  perhaps,  been  as  knowing  a  di- 
"  vine,  and  as  good  a  mathematician  as  any  in  it.  The  difference 
"  between  him  and  a  more  improved  Englishman,  Ij^lng  barely  in 
"  this,  that  the  exercise  of  his  faculties  was  bounded  within  the 
"  ways,  and  modes  and  notions  of  his  own  countrj-^,  and  was  never 
"  directed  to  any  other  or  farther  inquiries  :  And  if  he  had  not 
"  any  idea  of  a  God  as  we  have,  it  was  only  because  he  pursued 
"  not  those  thoughts,  that  would  certainly  have  led  him  to  it." — 
Thus  far  Mr.  Locke.  If  some  men  had  Iseen  born  where  the  gos- 
pel light  has  not  come,  they  would  have  learned  to  talk  more  so- 
berly of  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature. 

The  only  thing  that  remains  for  him  to  prove  as  to  this  first  ar- 
ticle is,  That  this  One  Supreme  God,  whom  he  thinks  the  Gentiles 
all  centered  in,  was  the  sa7ne  God  with  him  whom  we  worship.  For 
this  he  refers  us  to  three  scriptures — Rom.  i.  19.  Acts  x.  through- 
out, and  Acts  xvii.  28,  &c. 

Our  author  has  not  drawn  any  argument  from  those  passages,  but 
barely  refers  to  them.  He  was  particularly  unlucky  in  quoting  the. 
last  of  them  :  For  it  obliged  him  to  take  notice  of  an  argimient 
arising  obviously  from  the  passage,  against  the  purpose  he  adduced 
it  for  the  proof  of ;  and  indeed  that  passage  aflbrds  several  argu- 
ments against  our  author's  opinion  in  this  matter,  which  are  not 
easy  to  be"  solved,  if  they  who  follow  him,  were  to  be  determined 
by  scripture  arguments.  But  our  noble  author  has  scarce  fairly 
laid  the  objection,  which  he  started  to  himself  from  the  altar  to 
the  unknonn  God.  But  to  speak  home  to  the  purpose — There  are 
only  two  things  that  can  be  drawn  from  these  or  the  like  passages. 
1 .  That  some  of  the  Gentiles  knew  the  true  God.  2.  That  all  of 
them  had  some  notions  of  truth  concerning  God,  or  which  were 
only  rightlj'  applicable  to  the  true  God.    The  actincs  of  congcience 


238  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

within,  and  the  works  of  God  without  them,  enforced  on  them  the 
impression  of  some  power,  superior  to  themselves,  on  which  they 
depended  ;  and  this  was  indeed  a  notion  of  truth  concerning  God ; 
for  this  was  only  justly  applicable  to  the  true  God :  But  yet  they, 
through  their  darkness  and  wickedness,  when  they  came  to  inquire 
more  particularly  after  the  true  God,  applied  these  notions  to  crea- 
tures, and  took  them  for  this  true  God. 

Now  this  is  indeed  all,  besides  bare  and  repeated  assertions,  that 
I  can  find  in  our  author,  to  prove  that  his  first  article  obtained  uni- 
versally :  And  how  far  it  is  from  proving  this,  is  evident  from  what 
has  been  said. 

A  R  T  I  C  L  E     11. 

This  One  Supreme  God  is  to  be  worshipped. 

The  second  article  our  author  has  not  attempted  a  sufficient, 
nay,  nor  any  separate  proof  of  :  Wherefore  we  go  on  to  the  next. 

ARTICLE      III. 

That  Virtue  and  Piety  are  the  principal  parts  of  the  worship  of 
this  one  true  God. 

This  he  also  pretends  to  have  universally  obtained,  and  that 
the  Gentiles  expected  not  Heaven  for  their  worship,  or  their  sa- 
cred performances,  but  for  their  moral  worship,  that  is,  their  vir- 
tues. To  prove  this,  is  the  design  of  our  author's  15th  chapter, 
at  least  till  page  195. 

The  first  thing  he  insists  on  to  this  purpose  is,  the  high  respect 
wliich  the  Heathens  put  on  those  things,  while  they  ranked,  mens, 
ratio,  pietas,  fides,  padicitia,  spes  and  felicitas,*  amongst  the 
number  of  their  gods,  and  erected  temples  to  them.  This  he 
proves  at  large.  But  what  all  this  makes  to  his  purpose,  I  am  not 
yet  satisfied. 

This  indeed  proves  that  they  had  a  respect  to  all  those  things. 
Very  true,  so  they  had,  and  that  because  of  their  usefulness  in 
imman  society.  Yea,  this  proves  that  they  had  an  undue  respect 
lo  them,  so  as  to  perform  acts  of  worship  to  them.  But  that  they 
designed  to  worship  God  by  those  virtues,  which  they  would  not 
allow  they  had  from  him,  as  we  shall  hear  afterwards,  is  not  so  ea- 
sily proven.  Besides,  this  was  only  at  Rome  that  these  altars 
were  erected,  and  so  is  far  from  concluding  as  to  the  rest  of  the 
world,  where  virtue,  hope,  &c.  had  no  such  temples.  « 

*  Mind,  Reason,  Piety,  Faitli,  Hope  arid  Happiness. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      239 

The  next  thing  our  author  mentions  for  proof  of  the  universal 
reception  of  this  article,  is  the  custom  of  the  Heathens  in  deifying 
their  heroes  on  account  of  their  virtues  and  piety.  But  our  author 
knew  too  much  of  the  Gentiles'  religion  to  believe  that  this  proves 
any  more,  than  the  fulsome  flattery  of  the  blinded  world  that  dei- 
fied even  devils,  and,  as  our  author  elsewhere  well  observes,  men 
that  were  no  better  than  devils ;  or  if  there  was  any  more  in  this 
custom,  wlien  at  first  invented,  it  was  only  some  ill  applied  piece 
of  gratitude  to  persons,  who  had  been  their  benefactors,  or  the 
benefactors  of  mankind.  And  all  this  respect,  that  was  put  on 
them  was  not  because  their  virtues  reflected  any  glory  on  God, 
but  because  they  had  been  useful  to  men.  Besides,  religion  was 
old  in  the  world  before  this  novel  Grecian  invention  took  place. — 
As  the  Roman  poet  and  satyrist  observed, 


nee  turba  deorum 
Talis,  ut  est  hodie,  contentaque  sidera  paucis 
Numinibus,  miserum  urgebant  Atlanta  minore 
Pondere.* 

Nor  did  this  universally  obtain.  So  that  the  argument  con- 
cludes just  nothing.  It  neither  proves  that  all  the  world  were 
agreed  that  virtue  and  piety  are  the  principal  parts  of  the  worship 
of  God,  nor  that  on  account  of  these,  men  get  eternal  happiness. 
What  their  immortality  was,  of  which  they  talked,  we  may  see  un- 
der the  fifth  article. 

Some  few  quotations  from  Cicero,  Seneca,  Plato,  and  one  or  two 
more  compose  our  author's  last  argument.  Seneca  speaking  some- 
wliere  of  Scipio  Africanus  says,  "  Animam  quidem  ejus  in  cce- 
lum,  ex  quo  erat,  redisse  persuadeo,  non  quod  magnos  exercitus 
duxit  (hos  enim  Cambyses  furiosus,  &  furore  feliciter  usus  habuit) 
sed  ob  egregiam  moderationem,  pietatemque.  Cicero  Lib.  de 
Oflic.  Deos  placatos  facit  pietas  &  sanctitas."  And  elsewhere 
he  says,  "  Nee  est  uUa  erga  deos  pietas,  nisi  honesta  de  numine 
eorum  ac  mente  opinio  :  Quum  expeti  nihil  ab  lis  quod  sit  injus- 
tum,  ac  in  honestum  arbitrere."f  Some  others  he  adduces  from 
Plato  and  others,  wherein  they  say,  that  happiness  and  likeness  to 
God  are  obtained  by  virtue. 

*  "  Nor  was  there  such  a  multitude  of  gods,  as  there  is  now,  and  the 
'•  stars  being  content  with  a  few  deities,  pressed  the  poor  Atlas  with  less 
•'  weight." 

f  De  Ilelig.  Gentil.  pag.  187 '*  I  am  persuaded  that  his  soul  returned  to 

that  heaven  from  whence  it  came,  not  because  he  had  great  armies  (for  Cam- 
bysis  who  was  a  madman,  and  fortunate  in  his  madness,  had  these  too)  but  on 

account  of  his  remarkable   moderation  and  piety Piety  and  holiness 

appease  the  gods Nor  is  there  any  piety  towards  the  gods,  except  an 

honorable  opinion  of  their  deity  and  mind,  wlven  one  thinks  that  nothing  un- 
just and  dishonorable  should  be  asked  of  them." 


2:^0  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

But  to  what  purpose  are  al!  these  brought  ?  1 .  There  are  vrords 
here  of  gods,  and  their  worship  and  piety  as  respecting  them ;  but 
not  one  word  of  the  one  true  God,  of  whom  alone  we  speak.  2.  It 
is  certain  that  this  piety  and  sanctity  according  to  those  authors, 
comprehended  the  worship  of  their  gods,  as  our  author  expressly 
confesses,  "  Atqiie  ad  pietatem  consummatam  plurima  insuper 
(that  is,  besides  virtue  of  which  he  speaks  before)  postulari  aie- 
hant,sed  ea  prcesertim  qiKBgrati  in  superos  animi  indicia  essent, 
jnda  sacrijicia,  ritus  ^  ceremonias  8r  hujusmodi  alia  ;  quorum  far- 
rago ingensfuit :  Cccterum  sine  prcedictis  divis  sive  deabus,animam 
regentibus,  aditum  in  coelum  non  dari.^'f  This  last  part  is  only 
our  author's  say,  and  is  not  reconcileable  with  what  he  tells  us  of 
their  deifying  some,  who  were  so  far  from  being  gods,  that  they 
were,  says  he,  Ne  viri  quidem  probi.^  3.  As  for  what  Cicero 
says,  "  That  for  virtue  and  piety  we  are  advanced  to  heaven  ;" 
I  do  not  know  well  how  to  reconcile  it  with  what  he  says  elsewhere 
in  his  book  de  Amicitia,  "  Vult  plane  virtus  honoreni:  nee  virki- 
iis  est  vlla  alia  merces,''^  otherwise  than  by  thinking  that  by  heaven, 
(his  coclum,)  he  meant,  that  which  many  of  them  meant  by  their 
immortality y  that  is,  an  immortal  fame,  a  good  reputation  after  they 
are  gone,  amongst  the  survivors.  As  for  Seneca,  Christianity  had 
taught  him  a  little  more,  and  his  testimony  is  not  much  to  be  re- 
garded. 4.  Were  there  twenty  more  of  them,  they  never  come 
near  to  a  proof  of  the  point  :  it  is  the  sentiments  of  the  world 
that  we  are  inquiring  after,  and  not  what  were  the  thoughts  of  some 
of  the  more  improved  philosophers.  The  question  is  not,  Whe- 
ther men  by  the  light  of  nature  saw  an  excellency  in  virtue,  snd 
that  it  was  to  be  followed  ?  but.  Whether  they  looked  on  it  as  a 
part,  a  principal  part  of  the  worship,  not  of  their  deities,  but  of 
the  one  true  God  :  and  that  for  which  heaven,  not  (hat  imaginary 
heaven  which  men  had  at  their  disposal ;  but  an  eternifj/  of  happi- 
ness in  communion  with  God,  is  to  be  obtained  ?  Now  our  authoi- 
advances  nothing  to  prove  this  point. 

A  R  T  r  C  L  E     IV. 

We  miist  repent  when  we  do  amist!. 

As  to  this  article  our  author  confesses  several  things,  which  it 
will  be  meet  to  notice  in  the  entry.     1 .  He  owns  that  the  ancients. 


f  De  Itellg.  Gentjl.  pa.g.  185. — "  And  they  said,  that  many  other  tlihigs 
besides  were  requisite  in  order  to  constitute  perfect  piety,  but  especially  such 
things  as  were  indications  of  a  mind  grateful  to  the  gods,  viz.  sacrifices, 
rites,  and  ceremonies,  and  other  things  of  this  sort,  of  which  there  was  a 
great  number,  but  that  there  was  no  access  to  heaven  without  the  aforesaid 
gods  and  goddesses,  wlio  directed  the  soul." 

^  Ibid,  pag.  195.-«"  Nov  even  good  men." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  TPIE  MODERN  DEISTS.     241 

the  wiser  sort  of  tliem,  thought  not  repentance  a  sufficient  atoiie- 
ment  for  the  grosser  sort  of  sins  ;*  and  quotes  Cicero,  saying,  Ex- 
piatio  scclcriim  in  homines  nulla  cst.f  Where  God  was  ofleiided 
they  sought  sanctuary  in  repentance,  and  thought  it  sufficient,  but 
not  where  men  were  wronged.  "  Ccvtcrum  licet  in  remedium  pec- 
"  cati,ubi Dei Summi  rnajedas  lccderetur,painiientiam  sive  dolorein. 
"  efficacem  esse  crederent :  Non  ita  tamen  itbi  homines  injnria  vet 
conlnmelii  nffiicarenfur,  de  ponnilentia  ilia  staiuebant  Gcntiles.l 
2.  He  confesses  that  Ihey  thought  not,  "  Repentance  alone  a  suf- 
ficient atonement."  He  tells  us,  that  they  had  Expiationes  lus- 
irationesriue,  sine  qnib}is  neqite  crimine  nequepccna  solntosscmetip- 
SOS  arbitrabantnrW  Again,  3.  He  confesses  that  the  word  repen- 
tance or  penitence,  was  rarely  used  among  the  ancients,  in  that 
sense  we  use  it.  *^  Neqiiemihi  dubiuni  quineoruni  (scil.  peccato- 
"  rmn)pa:nitueiitGeniiles,qu(&  tot  mala;  arcessivcrunt;  licet  rarins 
"  quidem  pmdtenticr  vcrbum  inter  atitores,  eo  quo  jam  usurpatnr 
"  sensu  reperiatiir.*^  Since  then  he  makes  all  these  concessions, 
there  remains  no  more  save  this,  that  he  pretends  all  the  "  world 
•'  were  agreed  upon  repentance,  as  that  which  was  of  use  tp  expiate, 
"  at  least,  some  lesser  faults  committed  against  God,  and  that  we 
"  should,  when  we  sin,  be  grieved  for  it." 

To  prove  this,  he  quotes  some  pas-sages  from  Ovid,  Seneca  and 
some  others.  The  only  considerable  testimony  is  from  Periander, 
who  was  one  of  the  seveu  wise  men  of  Greece  :  One  of  Avhose 
sentences,  he  says  it  was  A'f*.xpTav  M.£Tctf<,£Xov,  oiia  u/^ccpntFcti,  Te 
mali  pnniteat,  nbi  peccaveris.  Seneca  says.  Quern  poenitet  peccasse 
pene  est  innocens.     And  Ovid, 

Saepe  levant  poenas,  ereptaque  lumlna  reddunt 
Quem  bone  peccati  poenitiiisse  vides.§ 

But  all  these  are  alleged  to  no  purpose.  They  do  not  prove  that 
repentance  was  looked  on  as  an  expiation  by  the  Gentiles.  Ovid 
and  Seneca  lived  too  late  in  the  world,  and  had  too  great  access  to 
learn  from  others,  to  be  much  regarded  in  this  matter  ;  but  they 
only  speak  their  own  mind,  and  we  have  here  no  argument  of  the 

•  De  Rel.  Gen.pag.  197. 

f  Cicero  de  Leg.  Lib.  1- — "  Tliere  is  no  expiation  of  crimes  against  men." 

t  De  Rcl.  Gent.  pag.  198. — "  But  aUhoiig-h  they  thought  that  penitence  or 
"  sorrow  was  an  effectual  mean  of  taking  awaj'  sin,  whereby  the  majesty  of  tlie 
"  Supreme  God  was  injured,  yet  they  had  not  the  same  opinion  of  penitence, 
"  in  regard  to  those  sins  whereby  men  were  injured  and  insulted." 

II  Ibid.  pag.  195.— "  Expiations  and  lustrations,  without  wiiich  they  did 
'*  not  think  themselves  absolved  either  from  crime  or  from  punishment." 
*•  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  198.—  "  Nor  is  it  a  doubt  with  me  that  the  Gentilea 
"  repented  of  those  crimes  whicli  brought  so  many  evils  upon  them,  although 
"  the  word  repentance,  in  that  sense  in  which  it  is  now  used  seldom  occurs  in 
"  their  authors." 

§  "  You  see  that  he  who  duly  repents  of  his  offence  often  alleviates  his  pun- 
"  ishmcnt,  and  rpst,)res  his  lost  light." 


242  AN  liSQUlRY  INTO  THE 

agreement  of  the  world  as  to  any  thing  about  repentance.  The 
opinions  of  the  wise  are  no  just  measure  of  the  knowledge  or  ap- 
prehensions of  the  vulgar. 

But  that  whereon  our  author  seems  to  lay  more  stress,  is  their  sar 
orifices,  wliich  he  pretends  are  an  evidence  of  their  grief  for  sin,  or 
repentance.  Qnorsimi  enim  nisi  interno  dolore perciti,  tot  ritus  sa- 
ri aqnc  ad  dcos  placandos  excogitasscnt  .''J 

But,  1 .  If  the  Gentiles  had  been  as  much  agreed  about  repen- 
tance as  our  author  pretends,  they  would  indeed  have  spared  all 
this  pains  and  cost.  2.  They  were  indeed  grieved,  but  this  grief 
they  did  not  willingly  entertain,  nor  allow  themselves  in  as  their 
dut7/  ;  but  looked  upon  it  as  their  torment,  and  sought  sanctuary 
in  means  proper  for  appeasing  their  gods,  as  they  thought.  3.  This 
grief,  which  sacrifices  prove  them  to  have  had,  is  no  more  but  that 
uneasy  sense  of  sin  in  the  conscience,  which  is  a  part  of  its  pun- 
ishment, and  no  duty  performed  for  their  deliverance  ;  and  this 
forced  them  upon  all  ways  that  they  could  imagine  to  get  rid  of  it ; 
so  that  sacrifices  were  what  they  betook  themselves  to,  to  save 
themselves,  or  procure  a  deliverance  from  our  author's  penitence. 
4.  Further,  our  author,  when  it  is  for  his  purpose,  can  put  another 
construction  on  their  sacrifices  ;  while  we  have  heard  above,  he 
makes  them  only  absurd  enough  testimonies  of  gratitude  to  the 
gods,  and  to  have  no  respect  to  sin  at  all.  It  is  indeed  true,  that 
sometimes  they  were  in  this  way  used ;  so  Pythagoras  is  said  to 
have  used  them  when  he  offered  Hecatombs  to  the  gods, for  a  pro- 
position which  he  found  out ;  but  for  ordinary,  they  were  designed 
as  expiatory.  5.  Do  their  sacrifices,  which  they  offered  to  so  ma- 
ny gods,  prove  that  they  were  troubled  for  offending  the  one  true 
God  ?  I  believe  not.  Aye,  but  this  is  what  our  author  should  have 
proved.  6.  Does  our  author  tell  us  that  they  were  so  little  agreed 
about  this  purgative,  that  no  less  a  person  than  Plato  discarded  re- 
pentance, and  put  philosophy  in  its  room,  as  that  whereby  only  we 
could  be  purged  ?  And  this  leads  me  to  a  7th  thing,  that  shews  of 
liow  little  signification  this  pretended  proof  is.  That  it  is  known 
that  the  more  discerning  philosophers  made  most  light  of  those  sa- 
crifices, yea  of  sin,  and  consequently  of  our  author's  Catholic  rem- 
edy, repentance.  As  to  the  sufficiency  of  repentance  for  the  place 
he  assigns  it,  we  have  spoken  to  it  above.  Our  author,  I  think, 
has  badly  proven  that  it  universally  obtained.  And  indeed  had 
there  been  as  much  weight  laid  on  it  as  is  pretended,  we  could  not 
have  missed  a  more  large  account  of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. Further,  8.  Our  author  pretends,  that  repentance  is  of  no 
avail,  as  to  the  grosser  evils,  but  only  washes  away  lesser  sins,  and 

^  "  For  to  what  purpose,  unless  they  had  been  prompted  by  inward  sorrow; 
"would  they  have  contrived  so  many  rites  and  sacrifices  for  appeasing  the 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      24S 

we  fear  our  author  would  find  some  difficulty  to  prove  that  gene- 
rally the   Gentiles  were  so  concerned  for  lesser  sins,  as  he  pre- 
tends.    9.  Had  they  been  so  well  agreed,  as  he   pretends,  about 
repentance,  and  had  this  been  the  design  of  their  sacrifices,  I  do 
not  well  understand   why  our  author  should  make  such  opposilion 
betwixt  sacrifices  and  repentance,  as  elsewhere  he  does ;  when  he 
is  speaking  of  several  faults  of  the  Heathen  priests,  he  subjoins — 
"  Sed  el  hoc  pejus,  quod  quum  ex  vera  virtufe,  vel  kinc  nbi  excide- 
"  rint  ex  pcenitentia  vera,  pacem  internam  comparare  debiiissent, 
"  ad  ritus  <^*  sacra,  quce  ipsi  CSciL  SacerdotesJ peragerent  resper- 
"  ducta  est,  ^c."*^  Here  it  would  seem  plain,  that  the  people  came 
at  length,  if  not  of  their  own  accord,  yet  by  the  persuasion  of  the 
priests,  to  overlook  repentance,  and  reject  it,  substituting  other 
things  in  its  room  ;  and  when  once  this  obtained  in  one  generation, 
it  is  like  it  might  spread  and  obtain  in  after  ages,  being  transmitted 
from  father  to  son,  and  the  priests  carrying  on  the  cheat  ;  and  so 
at  least  the  world  in  all  ages  hath  not  made  any  accomit  of  repen- 
tance as  the  only  expiation.  Again,  it  would  seem  from  our  author, 
that  sacrifices  did  not  import,  and  were  not  evidences  of  repentance, 
but  on  the  contrary,  means  invented  to  make  people  neglect  it.f  I 
do  not  well  understand  how  they,  who,  if  we  may  believe  our  au- 
thor, were  all  so  fully  agreed  about  repentance,  and  were  so  prone 
and  inclined  to  it,  that  their  minds  run  into  it  without  any  persua- 
sion,  should  need  so  much  the  priests'  persuasion,  and  be  easily 
drawn  off  from  what  they  accounted  so  available.    Let  us  hear  our 
author.     Speaking  of  man's  recovery  from  sin,  says  he,  "  Atque 
"  instatrrationem  hanc  fieri  debere  ex  pmiitenlia,  docuere  turn  philo- 
"  sophi,  turn  sacerdotes,  ita  ul  hanc  agendam  animamque  purifican- 
"  diim,  sed  nan  sine  eorum  ministerio,  scepius  inculcarent.     Bene 
"  quidem,  si  pocnitentiam  satis  populo  persuasissent,   quod  neuti- 
"  quam  iamem  ah  ill  is  factum  fiiit ;  licet  adeoprona  in  earn  sit  an- 
"  iina  Humana,  ut  etiam  nidlo  suadente,  inforo  inlerno  ex  gratia 
"  divina,conscienti(B  que  dictamine  decernaturJ'^X  Our  author  tells 
us,  that  the  people's  sacrifices  were  an  argument  of  their  repen- 
tance,as  we  heard  above,  and  that  the  priests  persuaded  them  to  it, 
and  that  they  were  all  agreed,  that  repentance  was  the  only  atone- 

*  Del.  Rel.  Gent.  pag^.  10.—"  But  this  too  is  worse,  that  when  they  ought  to 
"have  sought  inward  peace  by  true  virtue,  or  when  they  had  fallen  from  it, 
"  by  true  penitence,  the  matter  was  reduced  to  rites  and  sacrifices  performed 
"  by  the  priests." 

t  Ibid.  pag.  197. 

i  "  And  both  the  philosophers  and  the  priests  taught  that  this  recovery 
"  must  be  brought  about  by  repentance,  so  that  they  often  inculcated  that 
"  this  ought  to  be  done  and  the  soul  purified,  but  not  without  their  ministry, 
"  It  would  have  been  well  indeed  if  they  had  sufficiently  persuaded  the  people 
"  to  penitence,  which  however  was  not  done  by  them,  although  the  human 
"  mind  is  so  prone  to  it,  that  even  without  any  adviser,  it  is  determined  in  the 
•'  in^\i^rd  court  by  Ihc  divine  grace  and  the  dictates  of  conscience.*' 


244  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

jnent,  and  that  the  mind  of  man  needs  no  admonisher  to  persuade 
it  to  repentance  ;  and  yet  he  tells  us  likewise  in  the  passages  ad- 
duced, That  repentance  was  quite  laid  by,  sacrifices  and  rites  put 
in  its  place,  the  people  so  ignorant  of  the  worth  of  it  as  to  let  it  go, 
and  so  backward  as  not  to  look  after  it,  unless  the  priests  had  pres- 
sed it  more,  (and  yet  we  are  told  they  inculcated  it  oft)  and  in  fine, 
the  priests  so  negligent  that  they  quite  neglected  their  duty.  How 
to  knit  all  this  together  I  know  not.  I  do  think  it  were  easier  to 
make  these  words  overthrow  our  author's  argument,  than  to  recon- 
cile them  with  themselves,  with  truth,  reason,  or  experience  ;  but  I 
spare  reflections  that  offer  themselves.  Before  our  author,  or  the 
Deists,  make  any  thing  of  this  argument,  they  must  prove,  "  That 
sacrifices  universally  obtained — That  sacrifices  were  every  where 
offered  to  the  One  True  GOD — That  those  sacrifices  were  sym- 
bolical of  repentance,"  as  another  Deist  has  it,  and  several  other 
things  taken  notice  of  above. 

ARTICLE    v. 

That  there  are  rewards  and  punishments  after  this  Life. 

We  are  now  come  to  our  author's  last  article.  He  is  not  very 
constant  in  expressing  himself  about  this  article,  and  hoM'  far  it  was 
agreed  to.  Sometimes  he  pretends,  that  these  rewards  were  eter- 
nal  happiness,  and  that  this  was  agreed  ;  sometimes  only  it  was 
agreed  that  there  Avere  rewards  and  punishments  after  this  life  ;. 
and  sometimes»he  words  it  yet  more  modestly,  that  they  expected 
rewards  and  punishments,  either  in  this  life,  or  after  it.  So  page 
203,  when  he  enters  expressly  to  treat  of  this  article,  Et  qiiidem 
■prmninm  bonis  <^-  supplicium.  malis,  (N.  B.)  vel  in  hac  vita,  vel 
post  hanc  vitam  dari,  statuebant  Gentiles.^^'^ 

And  indeed  when  he  comes  to  tell  us  how  far  it  is  determinable  in 
this  matter  by  the  light  of  nature,  he  makes  this  article  of  very 
little  signification.  "  Non  imperite  quidem,  bonos,  bona,  malos  ma- 
"  la,  vel  in  feternum  manere  affirmabant  veteres.  At  quis  locum 
*'  prjemii,  vel  poenas  ostenderit? — Quis  supplicii  genus  conjectave- 
"  rit  ?"  (And  the  same  is  perfectly  the  case  as  to  rewards,  though 
our  author  waves  that,  for  what  cause  it  is  not  hard  to  conjecture.) 
*'  Quis  tandem  durationis  terminum  posuerit  ?"f 


*  •'  And  indeed  the  Heathens  were  of  opinion,  that  there  would  be  a  reward 
•'  to  the  good,  and  a  punishment  to  the  wicked,  either  in  this  life  or  after 
"  this  life." 

t  De  Ilelig  Gent.  pag-.  210.—"  The  ancients  indeed  not  unskilfully  affirm- 
"ed  that  good  things  awaited  the  good,  and  evil  the  wicked,  even  for  ever* 
"  IJut  wlio  could  show  the  place  of  reward  or  punishment  ?  Who  could  guess 
^' the  kind  of  punishment  ?  *  *  *  Who  at  last  can  fix  the  term  of  their 
-duration  2 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      245 

All  that  he  pretends  to  have  been  received,  was  barely  this, 
"  That  there  are  rewards  and  punishments  after  this  life."  Let  us 
hear  himself,  "  Et  quidem  praeter  solennem  illam  notitiam  commu- 
'■'■  iiem,  nempe,  deum  bonuni  justumq ;  esse,  adeoq  ;  praemium  vel 
*'  poenam  turn  in  hac  vita,  turn  post  hanc  vitam,  pro  actionibus,  imo 
*«  &  cogitationibus  suis  unicuique  remetiri,  nihil  quod  verisimile  ma- 
"  gis  esset  ab  illis  statui  possee  decernimus."*  But  he  tells  us, 
that  by  the  additions  they  made  to  this,  and  proceeding  to  deter- 
mine further  than  they  knew,  even  this  came  to  be  called  in  ques- 
tion, (which,  by  the  way,  ruins  our  author's  cause  as  to  this  arti- 
cle) but  let  himself  speak,  "  Dum  haec  philosophi,  ilia  sacerdotes, 
"  alia  demum  poetae  adjicerent,  tota  inclinata  in  c^sumq  ;  pronanu- 
"  tavit  veritatis  fabrica.  Si  semet  satis  coercuissent  Gentilium  co- 
"  riphaei,  neminem,  puto,  dissentientem  habuissent.f 

He  asserts  very  little,  we  see,  to  have  universally  obtained  as  to 
this  article,  and  he  seems  to  do  more  than  insinuate,  that  even,  as  to 
this  Utile,  at  least,  in  process  of  time  there  were  some,  and  even 
not  a  few  dissenters  :  For  I  knoAV  not  what  meaning  else  to  put  up- 
on the  "  whole  fabric  of  truth  nodding,"  and  "  inclining  to  fall :" 
And  this  is  to  quit  the  cause.  We  shall  howcA'er  notice  his  argu- 
ments, but  the  more  shortly,  because  of  what  has  been  already  ob- 
served. 

First  then,  he  pretends,  that  the  persuasion  of  this  is  innate,'^ 
that  the  reasons  of  it  are  so  obvious,  and  the  arguments  leading  to 
it  are  so  evident,  that  they  could  not  but  agree  as  to  this.|| 

But  1  have  already  shown,  that  every  thing  that  is  evident,  or 
was  so  to  our  author  and  his  companions  and  followers,  was  not  so 
to  the  ancient  sages.  I  guess  that  he  learned  most  of  these  argu- 
ments he  insists  on  from  some  others  than  the  Heathen  philoso- 
phers, or  if  they  managed  them  so  well,  he  would  have  done  right 
to  have  pointed  us  to  the  places  where  they  have  done  so.  But 
when  he  has  done  this  it  will  not  prove  an  tinioersal  consent :  For 
we  are  concerned  in  some  other  besides  philosophers.  As  for  what 
he  pretends  of  this  persuasion's  being  innate,  I  think  he  has  said 
much  to  disprove  it  himself ;  or  if  it  be,  I  think  the  presages  of 
future  misery  in  the  mind  of  man,  have  been  much  more  strong 
than  of  happiness.     And  in  a  word,  he  only  says  it  was  innate,  but 

•  ''  And  indeed  besides  that  solemn  common  notice,  that  thei'c  is  a  God 
"  who  is  good  and  just,  and  consequently  will  reward  and  pimish  every  one, 
"  both  in  this  life  and  after  this  life,  according-  to  his  actions,  and  even — to 
"  his  thoughts,  we  think  that  nothing' more  probable  could  be  determined  by 
"  them." 

\  "  While  the  philosophers  added  some  things,   the  priests  others,  and  the 
"  poets  others  further,  the  whole  fabric  of  truth  was  ruined  and  fell  to  tlie 
"  ground.     If  the  leaders  of  the  Heathens  could  have  restrained  Uicmselves, 
"  I  think  that  tl>\  would  have  had  nobody  differing  from  them." 
i  DcBeg.  Gent,  page  211.  ||  Ibid,  page  4. 


-246  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

does  not  prove  it.  Yea,  if  this  did  not  universally  obtain,  accord- 
ing to  our  author's  own  doctrine,  it  was  not  innate. 

Next  he  insists  on  the  custom  of  deifying  heroes,  and  placing 
them  among  the  number  of  the  immortal  gods.  This  he  hints  at 
frequently.  But  this  did  not  universally  obtain  as  to  time  or  place, 
and  so  hit  not  the  point  in  the  least.  All  were  not  so  dignified,  nay, 
not  all  that  were  good ;  nor  does  it  prove,  that  even  all  that  people, 
among  whom  this  custom  prevailed,  were  of  that  opinion  ;  but  on- 
ly the  persons  principally  concerned.  And  indeed  it  were  easy  to 
shew  that  they  were  not  all  of  this  opinion,  which  may  jK)ssibly  be 
made  appear  in  the  next  chapter. 

His  next  argument  is  deduced  from  a  few  testimonies  of  poets 
and  philosophers  asserting  a  future  state,  which  he  has  scattered 
tip  and  down,  here  and  there.  But  what  is  this  to  all  the  world  ? 
I)othe  poets'  fancies  of  Eb/sian  fields,  Styx  and  the  like,  give  us 
the  true  measure  of  the  sentiments  of  the  world  ? 

Thus  I  have  viewed  our  author's  proofs  of  his  five  articles,  and 
their  reception  in  the  world.  I  have  not  knowingly  omitted  any 
thing  of  moment,  advanced  by  him  for  his  opinion.  I  shall  con- 
clude this  chapter  with  a  few  general  reflections  on  our  author's 
conduct  in  this  affair. 

I  do  not  a  little  suspect  a  writer  of  controversy,  when  he  huddles 
up,  and  endeavors  to  conceal  the  state  of  the  question,  and  shifts  it 
upon  occasion.  It  is  always  a  sign  either  that  his  judgment  is  naught, 
or  that  his  designs  are  not  fair  and  good.  I  do  not  believe  that  our 
noble  author's  abilities  required  any  such  mean  shifts,  if  the  bad- 
ness of  the  cause  he  unhappily  undertook,  had  not  obliged  him  : 
But  that  this  is  the  course  he  steers,  is  evident.  Now  he  seems  to 
undertake  to  shew  us,  what  the  most  universal  apprehensions  of 
men  were  in  matters  of  religion  ;  and  anon,  he  pretends  to  tell  us 
what  the  more  discerning  persons,  among  the  Heathens  thought ; 
and  thus  shifts  the  scene,  as  it  is  for  his  purpose. 

It  is  further  remarkable,  that  our  author  has  crammed  in  a  great 
deal  of  philosophical  learning,  which  makes  nothing  at  all  to  the 
main  purpose  of  the  book.  He  has  writ  a  book  of  230  pages  to 
prove  that  these  five  articles  obtained  ;  whereas  all  the  arguments 
he  adduces,  scarce  take  up  ten  of  them.  The  rest  is  a  collection 
of  historical  and  philological  learning  about  the  Heathen  gods  and 
worship.  He  only  drops  here  and  there  (he  shadow  of  an  argu- 
ment ;  and  then  when  we  are  some  pages  by  it,  he  tells  us  he  has 
demonstrated  this  already,  and  we  are  referred  back  to  some  of 
the  preceding  argumemts  ;  and  that  is,  we  are  bid  search  for  a  nee^ 
die  amongst  a  heap  of  hay.  This  looks  exceeding  suspicious 
like.'* 


*  Head  the  conclusion  of  our  author's   8.  Cap.  pag.  54.  and  compare  it 
■with  the  Cap. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      247 

Again,  I  do  not  like  frequent  and  repeated  assertions  in  a  dis- 
putant without  arguments.  Fewer  assertions  and  more  urgumeuls, 
if  the  cause  had  permitted,  would  have  done  better.  It  is  said 
that  some  by  telling  a  lie  often  over,  come  at  length  to  believe  it 
to  be  true.  I  am  apt  to  think  that  the  oft  asserting  over  and  over 
again  what  he  undertakes  to  prove,  might  go  further  toward  his 
own  conviction,  than  all  the  arguments  that  he  has  advanced. 

Our  author  undertakes  to  give  us  an  account  what  the  Heathens* 
thoughts  as  to  those  articles  were,  and  what  led  them  to  these  ap- 
prehensions ;  but  after  all,  you  shall  find  nothing  but  an  account 
of  some  of  their  practices,  with  our  author's  glosses  put  on  them, 
and  the  reason  that,  not  they,  but  he  thinks  may  be  alleged  in 
justification  of  their  practices  and  opinions.  If  he  had  dealt  fair- 
ly he  would  have  told  us  in  their  own  words,  what  their  senti- 
ments were,  and  likewise  what  were  their  inducements  that  led 
them  into  those  opinions  ;  but  to  obtrude,  as  every  where  he  doth, 
his  conjectures  and  strained  interpretations,  as  their  meaning,  is 
perfectly  intolerable. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  our  author  affords  us  several  quotations 
from  the  Heathens  ;  but  doth  he,  by  this  means,  give  us  a  fair 
representation  of  the  point  in  controversy,  and  their  sentiments 
about  it  ?  No.  If  his  reader  is  so  simple  as  to  take  this  for  grant- 
ed, he  deceives  himself.  I  know  it  is  the  custom  of  some  others, 
as  well  as  our  author,  though  perhaps  on  better  designs,  to  quote 
some  passages  from  Heathen  authors,  in  order  to  shew  their  agree- 
ment with  Christianity,  and  to  what  a  length  the  mere  light  of  na- 
ture brought  them  ;  but  hereby  they  do  deceive  the  reader  :  So 
Cicero's  testimony  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  is  alleged  by 
our  author,  pag.  192,  "  Qucmadmodum  igiiiir  hand  alius  Deiis^ 
"  hand  alia  virtus,  ab  Gcntilibus,  quam  ab  nostris,  olim  celehra- 
"  tur,  ila  ccrte  communis  utriusque  spes  immortal itatis  fuit.  Di- 
"  sertim  Cicero  2  de.  Leg.  ait,  animi  hominum  sunt  immortales  : 
"  Sed  fortium  bonorum  divini  et  alibi  in  Lib.  de  Senectufe  ail  .- 
^'  Non  est  lugenda  mors,  quum  immortalilas  ronser/ui/j/r."*  Now 
if  any  one  should  think  that  this  testimony  of  Cicero  gives  a  full 
account  of  his  apprehensions  about  immortality,  they  would  be 
very  far  deceived  :  For  in  his  first  book  of  Tuscukui  Questions, 
where  he  discusses  this  point  ex  professo,  he  discovers  indeed  an 
inch  nation  to  believe  it,  and  a  desire  that  it  may  be  true  ;  yet 
such  a  hesitation  about  it,  that  he  knows  not  how  to  persuade  him- 
self of  it,  as  we  shall  show  perhaps  in  the  next  chapter.     In  like 

"  ''^s  therefora  there  was  no  othcf  God,  nor  any  other  virtue  formerly 
II  celebrated  among  the  Gentiles  llian  by  our  writers,  so  surely  both  of  them 
II  had  a  common  hope  of  immortality  ;  for  Cicero  savs  expressly,  2d  de  Legi- 

bus,  that  the  souls  of  men  are  immortal,  and  those  of  the  brave  and  good 
^^  are  divme  :  and  elsewhere  in  his  book  on  Old  Age  he  saySj  that  death  which 

imnicdiately  follows,  b  not  to  be  mourned  for." 


24S  AN  INaUlRY  INTO  THE 

manner  Plato  is  cited  by  him,  and  many  others  16  the  same  pur- 
pose  :  B^it  what  a  sad  uncertainty  both  Socrates  and  Plato  were 
in  about  this  point,  I  shall  fully  demonstrate  in  the  next  chapter. 
I  shall  here  set  down  only  one  notable  instance  of  the  unfairness  of 
this  wa}'  of  procedure.  Our  author  quotes  Solon's  testimony  for 
future  felicity,  pag.  1 94.  Let  us  hear  our  author's  own  words  : 
"  Pidchram  distinctlonem  inter  felicem  sive  fortunatem  ^  beatum 
"  affert  ex  Solo7ie  Herodotus  Lib.  1.  Ubi  Craso  respondent,  ait 
"  jiemhiem  digmim  esse  qui  vocetur  beatus  antequam  rtXtvTijo-et 
«  T«v  Biav  tv  hoc  est,  vitam  suam  bene  clauserit ;  adeoque  tvrvx» 
"  sive  fortunatum  hac  in  vita,  nequaqnam  ^'oxfiievsivebeaium 
"  ante  obitem  ejus  hominum  appellari  posse-  Huic  concinit  Ovi- 
"  diu's, 

Diciq  ;  beatus 
Ante  obitum  nemo,  supremaque  funera,  debet. 

"  Proprie  quippe  loquendo,  nemo  beatus  ante  mortem  :  Ita  ut 
"  beati  inter  Gentiles  vocarentur,  qui  in  EIt/sHs  campis  sempiter- 
"  no  czva  fruerentur.^^^ 

Now  here  we  have  a  proof  to  the  full  of  our  author's  conduct  in 
Ills  quotations,  and  the  improvement  of  them.  Was  not  Solon 
clear  that  there  was  a  state  of  happiness  after  this  life  ?  Who  can 
doubt  it,  after  our  author  has  thus  proved  it  ?  But  what  if  Solon 
for  all  this,  confined  happiness  to  this  life,  defining  the  happy  man, 
"  One  who  is  competently  furnished  with  outward  things,  acts 
honestly,  and  lives  temperately;"!  which  definition  no  less  a  per- 
son than  Aristotle  approves.  And  in  all  Solon's  speech  to  Cresus, 
there  is  not  one  word,  if  it  were  not  disingenuously  or  ignorantly 
quoted,  that  gives  us  the  least  ground  to  believe  that  Solon  once  so 
much  as  dreamed  of  fiappiness  after  this  life.  Stanley  in  his  life 
of  Solon  recites  from  Herodotus  this  whole  speech,  and  the  story 
to  which  it  relates.  J  Croesus,  king  of  Lydia,  in  Asia  the  less,  sends 
for  Solon  upon  the  fame  of  his  wisdom.  Solon  comes.  The  vain 
,  king  dazzled  with  the  lustre  of  his  own  greatness,  asked  the  wise 
Solon,  Whether  ever  he  saw  any  man  happier  than  himself,  who 
was  possessed  of  so  great  riches  and  power  ?  Solon  named  sever- 
al, particularly  Tellus  the  Athenian  citizen,    Cleobis  and  Bito,  two 

*  "  Herodotus  from  Solon  quotes  a  fine  distinction  betwixt  a  lucky  or 
"  fortunate  and  happy  man,  in  his  first  book,  when  Solon  answering  Croesus, 
"  says  that  nobody  deserves  to  be  called  happy,  till  he  has  ended  his  life  well, 
"  and  consequently  that  although  a  man  may  be  called  lucky  or  fortunate  in 
"  this  life,  but  that  he  ought  not  to  be  called  happy  before  his  death.  And 
"  Ovid  agrees  with  him,  "  Nor  ought  any  to  be  called  happy  before  his  death., 
"  and  the  last  ceremon}'  of  his  fmieral."  For  properly  speaking  none  is  hap- 
"  py  before  his  death.  So  that  those  were  called  happy  among  the  Gentile< 
"  who  enjoyed  an  eternal  life  in  the  PMysian  fields." 

\  Stanley's  Life  of  Solon,  page  26. 

%  Ibid,  page  28,  29. 


PRIN'CIPLES  OF  T'HE  MODERN  DEISTS.      249 

brothers  ;  the  story  of  whom  he  relates  to  Croesus,  and  gives  the 
reasons  why  he  looked  on  them  as  happy,  without  ever  a  hint  oi* 
their  enjoyinp;  any  happiness  after  this  life.  At  which  Cronsus  was 
angry  thinking  himself  undervalued ;  whereupon  Solon  thus  ad- 
dresses him — "  Do  you  inquire,  Croesus,  concerning  human  affairs 
"  of  me  who,  know  that  divine  providence  is  severe,  and  full  of 
"  alteration  ?  In  process  of  time,  we  see  many  things  we  would 
"  not ;  we  suffer  many  things  we  would  not.  Let  us  propose 
"  seventy  years  as  the  term  of  man's  life,  which  years  consist  of 
"  25,200  days,  besides  the  additional  month  ;  if  we  make  one 
"  year  longer  than  another  by  that  month,  to  make  the  time  ac- 
"  cord,  the  additional  months  belonging  to  those  years  will  be 
"  thirty-five,  and' the  days  1050,— whereof  one  is  not  in  all  things 
"  like  another.  So  that  every  man,  O  CroRsus,  is  miserable  !  You 
"  appear  to  me  very  rich,  and  are  king  over  many  ;  but  the  qiies- 
"  tion  you  demand  I  cannot  resolve,  until  I  hear  you  have  ended 
"  your  days  happily ;  he  that  hath  much  wealth  is  not  happier 
"  than  he  who  gets  his  living  from  day  to  day,  unless  fortune  con- 
"  tinuing  all  those  good  things  to  him,  grant  that  he  die  well. — 
"  There  are  many  men  very  rich,  yet  unfortunate  ;  many  of  mo*- 
"  derate  estates,  fortunate  ;  of  whom  he  who  abounds  in  wealth, 
"  and  is  not  happy,  exceeds  the  fortunate  only  in  two  things,  the 
"  other  him  in  many ;  the  rich  is  more  able  to  satisfy  his  desires, 
*'  and  to  overcome  great  Injuries ;  yet  the  fortunate  excels  him. — 
'*  He  cannot  indeed  inflict  hurt  on  others,  and  satisfy  his  own  de- 
"  sires  ;  his  good  fortune  debars  him  of  those  :  But  he  is  free  from 
"  evils,  healthful,  happy  in  his  children,  and  beautiful ;  if  to  this« 
'"  a  man  dies  well,  that  is,  he  whom  you  seek,  who  deserves  to  be 
"  called  happy ;  before  death  he  cannot  be  stiled  happy,  but  for- 
"  tunate  ;  yet  for  one  man  to  obtain  all  this  is  impossible,  as  one 
"  comitry  cannot  furnish  itself  with  all  things :  Some  it  hat!;, 
"  others  it  wants  ;  that  which  hath  most  is  the  best,  so  In  men  not 
"  one  is  perfect  ;  what  one  hath  the  other  wants.  He  who  hatli 
"  constantly  most,  and  at  last  quietly  departs  this  life,  in  my  opin- 
"  ion,  O  king,  deserves  to  bear  that  name.  In  every  thing  we 
"  must  have  regard  to  the  end,  whither  it  tends  ;  for  many  to 
"  whom  God  dispenseth  all  good  fortunes,  he  at  last  utterly  sub- 
"  verts."  Thus  we  see  the  whole  passage,  in  which  it  is  evident 
that  Solon  meant  only,  that  to  make  a  man  happy,  it  is  requisite  he 
continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  competency  till  death,  and  that 
then  he  die  well,  that  is,  quietly  and  in  good  respect  or  credit  with 
men.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  dying  well  according  to  Solon, 
is  not  only  evident  from  the  strain  of  the  discourse,  but  from  the 
stories  of  Tellus,  ('leobis  and  Blto,  whom  he  instances  as  happy 
men,  because  of  their  creditable  deaths.  The  first  he  tells  us  died 
in  defence  of  his  countrv,  after  he  had  put  bis  enemies  to  flight, 

^2 


•250  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  he  died  nobly,  and  the  Athenians  buried  him  in  the  place  where 
he  fell,  with  much  honor."  The  two  brothers,  Cleobis  and  Bito, 
drew  their  mother's  chariot  forty-five  stadia,  and  with  the  stress 
died  next  morning  in  the  temple,  and  so  died  honorably.  And  any 
that  will  give  himself  the  trouble  to  read  Ovid's  story  of  Acteon, 
in  his  third  book  of  his  Metamorphosis  will  see  it  clear  as  the  day, 
that  he  meant  just  the  same.  He  represents  how  happy  one  might 
have  thought  Cadmus,  considering  how  many  things  he  had  that 
were  desirable  in  his  lot,  a  kingdom,  relations,  and  children,  had 
not  Acteon  his  grand-child's  fate  interrupted  the  series  of  his  joys, 
and  made  him  miserable.  Whereupon  the  poet  concludes,  "  Til! 
death  a  man  cannot  be  called  happy  ;"  that  is,  till  a  man  has  with- 
out interruption,  enjoyed  a  tract  of  prosperity,  and  dies  creditably- 
without  any  mixture  of  ill  fortune. 

Jam  stabant  Thebae  :  Poteras  jam  Cadme,  videri 
Exiliofelix:  Soceri  tibi  Marsque  Venusque 
Contigerant :  Hue  adde  genus  de  conjuge  tanta, 
Tot  natos,  natasque,  &  pignora  cara  nepotes. 
Hos  quoque  jamjuvenes  :  sed  scilicet  ultima  semper 
Expectanda  dies  homini  est,  dicique  beatus 
Ante  obitum  nemo,  supremaque  funera  debet. 
Prima  nepos  inter  res  tot  tibi,  Cadme,  secundas 
Causa  fuit  luctus,  &c.* 

And  thus  he  proceeds  to  tell  the  story  of  Acteon's  being  trans- 
formed into  a  hart.  Thus  we  see  with  what  candor  our  author 
quotes  the  Heathens.  Here  he  has  first  broke  off  some  words  from 
their  context,  whereby  the  unwary  reader  is  tempted  to  believe, 
that  the  speaker  meant  quite  another  thing  than  really  he  did  ;  and 
then  obtrudes  this  false  sense  of  one  or  two  men's  words,  who 
^vere  wise  men,  and  in  their  thoughts  far  above  the  vulgar,  as  the 
harmonious  meaning  of  the  Gentile  world. 

Nor  do  I  think  it  strange  that  our  author  should  serve  us  so,  see- 
ing he  was  prepossessed  in  favor  of  the  Heathen's  religion  before 
he  began  to  read  tlieir  books.  For  he  tells  us  in  the  entry  of  his 
!>ook,  the  very  first  sentence  of  it,  and  more  fully  in  the  rest  of  the 
first  chapter,  That  he  was  at  once  very  concerned  for  the  divine 
providence,  and  withal  fully  convinced  that  it  could  not  be  main- 
tained without  there  were  a  religion  common  io  all  men  ;  or,  as 
his  words  formerly  quoted  by  us  express  it,  "  unless  every  man 
Avas  provided  with  the  means  that  were  needful  for  attaining  future 


*  Ovid.  Metamorph.  Lib.  3. — "  And  now  Thebes  was  built ;  now,  O  Cadmus, 
vou  might  seem  to  be  happy  in  your  banishment.  Mars  and  Venus  were  your 
father  and  mother  in  law  ;  add  to  this,  a  race  from  so  illustrious  a  consort,  so 
many  sons  and  daughters,  and  grand-children,  dear  pledges,  and  these  too  al- 
ready youths  ;  but  truly  a  man  must  always  look  for  his  last  day,  and  noliody 
can  be  called  happy  before  his  death,  and  last  funeral  rites.  Amidst  so  much 
prosperity,  o  Cadmus,  a  grandson  was  the  first  cause  of  mourning  to  you." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        251 

happiness  ;"  so  he  went  to  the  books  of  the  Heathens  under  a 
persuasion  that  there  was  a  common  religion  there,  could  he  be  so 
lucky  as  to  light  on  it,  and  therefore  no  doubt  he  drew  and  strain- 
ed things  to  his  purpose,  both  rites  and  words.  Thus  he  begins 
his  discourse  about  expiation  :  "  Quosdam  Gentilium  ritus,  qui  in 
sensum  saniorem  trahi  possunt,  jam  tractaturus,"*  &c.  And  in- 
deed he  draws  them  to  a  sounder  sense  than  ever  they  put  on 
them.  But,  after  all,  forced  prayers  are  not  good  for  the  souly  says 
the  Scots  proverb.  And  from  one  thus  prepossessed,  we  can  ex- 
pect no  fair  account  of  the  Gentiles'  sentiments. 

Which,  by  the  way,  gives  me  occasion  to  remark,  that  if  any 
one  desires  to  understand  the  mind  of  the  Heathen  philosophers 
and  sages,  they  should  read  them  themselves,  or  Heathens'  accounts 
of  their  lives  and  actions,  rather  than  those  done  by  Christians  ; 
because  very  often  when  Christians  write  their  lives,  they  have 
some  design,  and  they  strain  every  thing  in  the  philosophers  to  a 
compliance  either  with  their  designs  or  apprehensions.  The  Hea- 
then writers  being  under  no  influence  from  the  scripture  light,  do 
plainly  narrate  things  as  they  are,  (not  being  so  sensible  of  what 
things  may  reflect  really  upon  the  persons  concerning  whom  they 
write  ;  the  light  of  nature  not  representing  clearly  that  wickedness 
which  is  in  many  of  their  actions  and  opinions)  and  scruple  not  to 
tell  them  out  plainly  :  whereas  Christians,  being  aware  how  odious 
such  and  such  practices  or  principles  are,  dare  scarce  tell  such 
things  of  those  famous  men,  as  they  were  really  guilty  of;  because 
they  know  how  deep  a  stain  it  will  leave  on  them,  by  those  who 
are  taught  the  evil  of  them  by  the  scriptures. 

I  shall  add  this  reflection  more  :  If  any  one  would  conclude  from 
our  author's  confidence  in  some  places  of  his  book,  where  he  talks 
of  many  reasons  that  he  has  advanced,  and  that  he  has  demonstrat- 
ed this  and  that ;  if,  I  say,  from  this  they  would  infer,  that  he  was 
fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind,  about  these  five  articles y  that  they 
universally  obtaincdy  and  are  sufficient,  he  would  very  far  mistake 
our  author,  who,  throughout  his  book,  sufficiently  betrays  his  un- 
certainty about  them,   and  that  he  wanted  not  a  fear  lest  it  should 

not  be  true,  as  some  things  afterwards  to  be  pleaded  will  show 

But  lest  this  should  seem  to  be  said  altogether  without  ground,  I 
shall  single  out  one  instance  of  our  author's  wavering  in  this  mat- 
ter, reserving  others  to  another  occasion.  It  is  page  1 9,  where, 
after  our  author  has  discoursed  of  the  jnore  famous  names  of  the 
true  God,  and  showed  that  the  Gentiles  applied  them  all,  save  one, 
to  the  sun,  he  concludes  thus,  "  Haec  saltern  fuere  solenniora 
Sunimi  Dei  nomina  inter  Hebraeos  extantia,  quae  etiam  ad  solera, 

De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  195. — "  Being  now  about  to  treat  of  some  rites  of  the 
ileathens,  wliich  may  be  drawn  into  a  sound  setse." 


252  AN  INaUlRY  INTO  THE 

Sabazio  excepto,  a  Gentllibus  reducta  fuisse,  ex  supra-allatis  con- 
jecturam  facere  licet.  Adeo  iit  quamvis  superius  sole  niimen  sub 
hisce  praesertim  vocabulis  coluerunt  Hebrsei,  solem  neque  aliud 
rumeR  intellexerunt  Gentiles,  nisi  fortasse  in  sole,  tanquam  prae- 
claro  Dei  Summi  specimine,  &  sensibili  ejus,  ut  Plato  vocat,  simula- 
cro,  Deuiii  summum  ab  illis  cultum  fuisse  censeas  :  Quod  non  facile 
abnuerim,  prffiseitim  cum  syrabolica  fuerit  omnis  fere  religio  vete- 
rum."^  But  perhaps  though  our  author  was  not  well  confirmed  in 
his  opinion,  Avhen  he  began  his  book,  yet  he  came  to  some  more 
fixedness  before  he  got  to  the  end  of  it.  Well,  let  us  hear  him,  in 
his  censure  of  the  Gentiles'  religion  in  the  last  chapter  of  his  book;' 
where  speaking  of  the  worshipping  the  heavens,  the  sun,  &c.  he 
gives  his  judgment  thus  :  "  I)e  hoc  quidem  dogmate,  idem  ac  de 
priore  censeo  :  Nempe,  nisi  symbolicus  fuerit,  erroneum  mihi 
prorsus  videtur  esse  cultum  ilium.  Caeterum  quod  symbolici  fuerunt 
dim  hujnsmodi  cultus,  multae,  quas  supra  adduximus,  suadere  vi- 
dentur  rationes  :  Sed  sno  judicio  heic  quoque  utatur  lector."f — 
"What  more  uncertainty  could  any  betraj^,  than  our  author  doth  in 
these  words  ?  And  indeed  here  we  have  enough  to  overthrow  his 
whole  book  :  for  if  this  first  article  fall  all  will  fall  with  it,  as  we  may 
see  afterwards. 

But  it  is  now  time  that  we  draw  to  a  conclusion  of  this  chapter, 
having  sufficiently  enervated  our  author's  arguments,  so  far  as  we 
could  discern  them.  If  any  of  them  seem  to  be  omitted,  I  piesurae 
they  will  be  found  to  be  of  no  great  consideration,  and  of  an  easy 
despatch  to  any  that  is  acquainted  with  this  contioversy.  Our 
author's  way  of  writing  made  it  somewhat  difficult  to  find  his  argu- 
ments. And  indeed  upon  serious  reflection,  I  can  scarce  under- 
stand at  what  our  author  aimed  in  this  way  of  writing.  He  could 
never  rationally  expect  that  this  would  clear  the  subject  he  had 
imdertaken.  I  had  almost  concluded  that  his  design  behoved  to 
be  an  ostentation  of  his  krowledge  of  the  Heathens'  religion,  in  or 
der  to  make  his  authority  have  the  more  weight,  and  to  scare  peop'c 

*  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag-.  19. — "  Those  at  least  were  the  more  solemn  names 
of  the  Supreme  God,  that  we  find  among-  the  Hebrews  ;  all  whicli  except  Sa- 
bazino,  we  may  conjecture  from  what  has  been  quoted  above,  was  applied  by 
the  Gentiles  to  the  sun.  So  that  although  the  Hebrews  worshipped  a  deity 
superior  to  the  sun,  especially  under  those  names,  yet  the  Gentiles  under- 
stood by  them  the  sun  and  no  other  deity,  unless  perhaps  in  the  sun,  as  an 
illustrious  representation  and  sensible  image,  of  the  Supreme  God,  as  Plato 
calls  him,  under  which  figure  we  may  suppose  that  the  Supreme  God  was 
worshipped  by  tliem.  Which  I  would  not  easily  contradict,  especially  as  al- 
most all  tlie  religion  of  the  ancients  was  s3-mbolical." 

f  Ibid,  pag.  223. — "  Concerning  this  doctrine  indeed,  I  am  of  the  same 
opinion  as  concerning  tlie  former,  to  wit,  that  unless  that  worship  was  sym- 
bolical, it  seems  to  me  to  have  been  quite  erroneous.  But  the  many  reasons 
which  we  have  adduced  above,  seem  to  persuade  us  to  believe  that  worship 
of  this  kind  of  old  was  symbolical.  But  let  the  reader  use  his  Qwn  judgmeiu 
in  this  case  likewise." 


I 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      253 

from  entertaining  a  different  opinion  conceniing  the  religion  of  the 
Heathen  world,  from  that  which  one  who  had  so  industriously 
searched  into  their  writings,  owned.  But  if  this  was  it,  our  au- 
thor has  missed  it.  And  I  think  instead  of  doing  the  Deists' 
cause  any  service  this  way,  he  has  rather  hurt  it :  for  every  one 
that  shall  peruse  this  work  with  attention,  and  find  how  great  our 
author's  learning,  diligence  and  industry  have  been,  and  yet  how 
little  he  has  been  able  to  do,  they  will  infer  the  weakness  of  the 
cause  he  lias  undertaken,  and  conclude,  that  the  cause  could  bear 
no  better  defence,  and  that  therefore,  a  weak  and  indefensible  cause 
fcas  baffled  our  author's  great  abilities  and  application.      For 

si  Pergrama  dextra 


Defend!  posscnt,  efiam  hac  defensa  fuissent.* 

C.  Blount  and  they  who  have  come  after  our  author,  as  has  been 
said  before,  do  but  copy  after  him,  and  take  his  notions  upon  trust, 
but  others  will  be  somewhat  more  M'ise,  and  will  look  whom  they 
trust  in  a  matter  of  this  importance. 


CHAP.     XV. 

Wherein  it  is  made  appear  that  Herberfs  Five  Articles  did  not 
univcrsaUi/  obtain. 

WE  have  in  the  preceeding  chapter  sufficiently  showed  how 
weak  our  noble  author's  proofs  are  of  his  universal  religion.  It 
now  remains  that  we  prove  that  what  he  pretends  is  indeed  false. — 
Our  work  here  is  far  more  easy,  than  what  our  author  undertook. 
He  asserts  that  providence  cannot  be  maintained,  unless  all  man- 
kind are  provided  in  the  means  needful  for  attaining  future  happi- 
ness, and  he  is  likewise  clear,  that  less  cannot  be  allowed  sufficient 
for  this  end  than  the  five  articles  mentioned,  wherefore  he  pretends 
that  all  the  world  agreed  in  owning  these.  Now  to  have  made 
this  last  appear,  it  was  needful  it  should  be  proven  by  induction  of 
all  particular  nations,  that  they  thus  agreed,  and  that  as  to  all  times 
— but  this  would  have  been  somewhat  too  laborious.  We  main- 
tain ihat  all  did  not  agree  in  the  acknowledgment  of  those  five  arti- 
cles :  And  this  is  evinced,  if  we  can  show  only  one  nation  dissent- 
ing from  any  one  of  them.  But  we  shall  not  be  so  nice  upon  the 
point,  as  only  to  mention  one  nation,  or  disprove  one  article.  Let 
us  take  a  separate  view  of  each  article,  and  see  what  the  judgment 
of  some  nations  were  concerning  them. 


*  " If  Troy  could  have  been  defended-  by  any  right  hand,  it  \yould 

have  been  defended  by  this  one" 


254     .  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

ARTICLE     I. 

All  the  World  did  not  agree  in  owning  the  One  True  Supreme 

GOD. 

I  MIGHT  for  proof  of  this,  only  desire  any  person  to  read  our 
author's  book,  and  there  he  would  find  this  sufficiently  clear.  But 
I  shall  shortly  confirm  it  to  the  conviction  of  any,  who  has  not  a 
mind  to  shut  his  eyes,  by  the  few  following  observations  as  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  world  in  this  case. 

1 .  It  is  most  evident  to  any  one,  who  will  give  himself  the  trou- 
ble to  read  ever  so  little  of  the  writings  of  the  Gentiles,  that  ma- 
ny nations,  I  had  almost  said  most  nations,  did  hold  a  plurality  of 
eterncl  and  independent  beings,  on  whom  they  depended,  and  which 
they  called  gods  in  the  properest  sense  of  the  word.  Herodotus 
quoted  by  our  author  tells  us,  "  That  all  the  Africans  worshiped 
**  the  sun  and  moon  only" — "  Soli  &  lunse  solummodo  sacrificant, 
*'  &  quidem  Afri  universi."*  And  Plato  quoted  hkewise  by  our 
author,  a  few  pages  after,  in  his  dialogue,  which  he  calls  Cratylus, 
tells  us,  "  Qui  Graeciam  primi  incoluere,  ii  videntur  mihi  illos  so- 
lum deos  existimasse,  quos  nunc  etiam  barbari  multi,  pro  diis  ha- 
bent,  solem,  lunam,  terram,  astra,  ccelum."f  Of  this  also  the  an- 
cient inscriptions  mentioned  by  our  author,^  and  more  particular- 
ly by  Hornbeck  in  his  treatise  de  Conversione  Gentilium,  is  a  proof. 
— "  Soli  invicto  &  lunae  aeternje  deo  soli  invicto  Mythrae  &  omnipo- 
"  tenti,  deo  Mythr£e."||  Mythras  was  a  name  given  to  the  sun  by 
the  Persians,  as  our  author  proves.  And  if  we  may  believe  Maimo- 
nides,  the  Sabeans  owned  no  God  save  the  stars.  "  Notum  est 
*'  Abrahamum  patrem  nostrum  educatura  esse  in  fide  Sabaeorum, 
*'  qui  statuerunt  nullum  esse  Deum,  prseter  stellas.**  Nor  were 
the  Egyptians  of  another  mind.  Diodorus's  testimony  is  worth 
our  notice  to  this  purpose, — "  Igitur  primi  illi  homines  olim  in 
"  ^gypto  geniti,  hinc  mundi  ornatum  conspicientes,  admirantes- 
"  que  universorum  naturam,  duos  esse  deos,  &  eos  aeternos  arbitra- 
"  tri  smit,  solem  &  lunam :  Et  ilium  quidem  Osiridem,  banc  Isidim 
"  certa  nominis  ratione  appellarunt."tt 

*  De  Rel.  Gent,  page  36. 

t  Ibid.  pag.   39. — "  Those  who  first  inhabited  Greece,  appear  to  me  to  have 
*'  thought  that  these  alone  were  gods,  which  many  barbarians  still  hold  to  be 
**  gods,  to  wit,  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  earth,  the  stars,  the  heaven." 
f   +  Ibid.  pag.  26.  ||  Hornbeck,  pag.  19. 

•*  More  Nevochim,  referente.  Hornbec  ubi  supra,  pag.  17. — "  It  is  well 
"  known  that  our  father  Abraham  was  educated  in  the  ^ith  of  the  Sabeans, 
"  who  thought  that  there  was  no  God  except  the  stars." 

-j-f  Owen  Theolog.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  5.  Herbert  pag.  39. — "  Therefore  those  first 
"  men  that  were  produced  in  Egypt,  observing  from  thence  the  beauty  of  the 
"  world,  and  admiring  the  nature  of  the  universe,  concluded  that  there  were 
"  two  gods,  the  sun  and  the  moon,  and  they  called  the  one  Osiris,  and  the 
"  other  Isis,  giving  certain  i-easons  for  those  names." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     255 

Thus  we  see  what  the  apprehensions  of  several  nations  were, 
and  how  harmonious  they  are  in  dissenting  from  our  author's  asser- 
tion. It  had  been  easy  to  have  alledged  many  more  testimonies 
even  from  our  author  against  himself:  But  we  aim  at  brevity. 

2.  It  is  not  improbable,  that  some  nations,  though  they  might  al- 
low some  priority  of  one  of  their  gods  to  the  rest,  yet  did  not  think 
that  there  was  any  such  great  inequality,  at  least  amongst  their 
more  notable  deities,  as  could  infer  the  supremacy  of  one  to  the 
rest,  and  their  dependence  on,  and  subordination  to  him.  We  find 
every  where  equal  honors  paid,  and  equal  or  very  little  different 
titles  of  respect  given  to  the  sun  or  moon.  So  that  it  is  very  likely, 
though  they  might  give  the  sun  the  preference  in  point  of  order, 
yet  they  did  not  apprehend  any  such  great  inequality,  as  seems 
needful  betwixt  one  supreme  being  and  his  dependents.  Ths  peo- 
ple of  Mexico  in  America,  though  they  Avorship  many  gods,  yet 
look  on  their  two  principal  ones,  whom  they  call  Vitzilopuchlli  and 
Tescatlipuca,  as  two  brothers.  "  Mexicani  primo  colere  solitifii- 
"  erunt  immanetn  deonim  iurbam,  bis  mille  referunt,  inter  qno$ 
"  duo  prcBcipui  Vitzilopuchtli  <?■  Tescallipuca  duo  fralres^  quorum 
"  alter  rerum  providentice,  alter  bellisprceerat."^  And  tlie  inhab- 
itants of  Darien,  St.  Martha  and  other  places  thereabouts,  own  only 
the  sun,  and  the  moon  as  his  wife.  Further,  it  is  owned  by  our 
author  several  times,  that  many  nations  hold  two  first  beings,  one 
good  and  another  cy?7,  whom  they  call  VerJupiler,  and  by  the  Per- 
sian Magi  he  was  called  Arimanus.  Though  our  author  liiinks  a 
softer  construction  is  to  be  put  on  their  meaning,  than  to  charge 
them  with  making  their  Ve-Jupiter  equal  with  the  good  God  :f 
But  we  know  our  author  must  not  be  allowed  to  interpret,  unless  he 
can  give  good  grounds  for  his  opinion  about  the  meaning  of  the 
Gentiles,  which  in  this  case  he  doth  not  once  attempt,  and  we  know 
that  some  looked  on  this  wicked  principle  as  the  supreme,  as  we 
shall  show  anon  ;  and  I  think  it  will  be  hard  to  clear  some  of  them, 
yea  even  no  less  a  person  than  Plutarch,  from  making  them  equal 
and  both  infinite  ;  if  we  may  believe  a  late  author,  who  tells  us, 
"  That  as  for  Plutarch,  one  of  the  soberest  of  the  philosophers,  he 
"  was  the  horridest  Polytheist  of  them  all ;  for  he  asserts  two  Su- 
"  preme  Anti-gods ;  one  infinitely  good,  and  the  other  infinitely 
"  evil."J  Moreover,  some  of  the  Deists  do  not  think  this  opinion 
destitute  of  probability,  as  we  have  noted  before.||  But  whatever 
there  is  as  to  this,  yet, 

•  Uornbeck,  pag.  70. — The  Mexicans  at  first  used  to  worship  an  immense 
"  number  of  jfods,  to  wit,  two  thousand,  tlie  chief  amon^  which  were  Vitzi- 
"  lopuchtli  and  Tezcatlipuca,  two  brothers,  the  one  of  whom  had  tlie  care  of 
"  the  world,  and  the  other  presided  over  wars." 

t  De  Relig.  Gent.  pap.  163.  \  Nichol's  Confer.  Part  2.  pag.  57. 

!|  Oracles  of  Reason,  pag',  194, 


256  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

3.  It  is  certain  that  many  of  them,  notwithstanding  the  huge 
number  of  gods  they  maintained,  were  utterly  ignorant  of  the  true 
God.  This  is  so  evident,  that  I  cannot  but  wonder  at  our  author's 
impudence  in  denying  it,  especially,  after  the  testimonies  we  have 
already  quoted  from  him.  We  have  heard  already  that  the  Egyp- 
tians and  Grecians  of  old  owned  no  other  gods  besides  the  sun, 
moon  and  stars.  And  we  have  heard  the  same  of  the  Sabeans, 
of  several  Americans  and  inhabitants  of  Africa ;  and  Caesar  tells  us 
the  same  of  the  Germans — "  Deorum  numero  eos  solum  ducimt, 
"  qiios  cernunty  &  quorum  opibus  aperte  juvantur,  solem  ^  viil- 
"  canum  <§•  lunam  ;  reliquos  ne  fama  quidem  acceperunt.^*^ 
Yea,  our  author  is  forced  to  make  a  fair  confession,  and  contradict 
himself  in  the  entry  of  his  fourth  chapter,  where  speaking  of  the 
Gentiles  and  their  worshipping  of  the  sun,  he  delivers  himself 
thus  :  "  Incongruum  demum  existimaverunt^  ut  qui  cultum  ab  om- 
"  nibus  flagitaret,  a  cultoribus  suis  sese  absconderet  Deus.  So- 
"  lem  igitur  Deum  fere  omnes  Gentiles  statuebnnt,  non  summum 
"  quidem,  sed  summo  proximum,  ejusque  praclarissimam  ico- 
"  ne/M,  licet  alii,  mundum,  totum,  tanquam  Deo  plenum,  summi 
"  numinis  hnaginem  speciosam  apprime  pr(R  se  ferre  contettde- 
"  rent.^'j  Here  you  see  our  author  positive,  that  they  put  not 
the  sun  in  the  room  of  the  One  true  God  :  None  of  them  did  it  ; 
but  we  shall  hear  him  in  the  very  next  sentence  tell  us,  that  they 
did  discard  the  true  God,  and  very  absurdly  put  another  in  his 
place.  "  Certe  uti  olim  dictum  (says  our  author)  qui  solem  vice 
"  summi  Dei  coluerunt,  perinde  fecere,  ac  illi  qui  ad  aulam  po- 
*'  tentissimi  principis  accedentes,  quern  primum  amictu  splendido 
"■  indutum  cernerunf,  regium  illi  cultum  deferendum  existimaver- 
"  im^"J  And  our  author  knows  full  well  that  at  Athens  there 
was  an  altar  erected  to  the  unknown  God  ;  and  Paul  expressly 
tells  them,  that  this  unknown  God,  was  the  true  God.  Whom 
therefore  ye  ignorantly  worship,  him  de4:lare  I  unto  you.  Whai 
says  our  author  to  this  ?  He  directly  contradicts  the  apostle,  and 
then  makes  him  a  compliment,  that  is  well  nigh  to  nonsense.  "  Cce- 


*  De  Bello  Gallico,  T/ib.  6. — "  They  reckon  in  the  number  of  the  gods  only 
t'**  those   whom  they  scp,  and  by  whose  power  they  are   evidently  assisted, 
*'  that  is  the  sun,  the  fire,  and  the  moon.    They  liave  not  so  much  as  heard 
"  of  the  other  srods." 

I  De  Relig'.  Gent.  pag.  20.—"  In  fine,  they  reckoned  it  incongruous  to  sup- 
*'  pose,  that  God,  who  required  worship  from  all  men,  should  hide  himseir 
"  from  his  worshippers.  Therefore  almost  all  the  Heathens  thought  that  the 
*'  sun  was  a  g'oil ;  not  indeed  the  supreme  one,  but  next  to  the  supreme,  and  ' 
"  his  most  illustrious  iinag-e  ;  althoug-li  others  maintained  that  the  whole 
■'  world,  as  being  full  of  God,  bore  a  distinct  impression  of  his  image." 

t  "Surely,  as  was  said  long  ago,  those  who  worshipped  the  sun  instead  of 
"  the   Supreme  Deity,   acted  in  the  same  manner  as  those  who  going  to  the 
"  court  of  a  most  powerful  prince,  should  think  that  the  first  person  they  j 
"  .saw  splendidly  dressed  was  the  king,  and  to  be  reverenced  as  such." 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      25f 

<•  terum  (says  he)  duriuscule  Deu3  ignotus  Atheniensium  ad  De- 
«  lira  Judffiorum  refertur  :  Ut  ita  priora  S.  S.  loca  Deum  Genti- 
''  Hum  euiukun  ac  cominunem  omnium  Deum  evincant.  Nam  De- 
"  us  ille  ignotus  Atheniensium  alius  certe  fuit,  (this  is  a  plain  con- 
"  tradiclion  to  the  apostle's  assertion)  atque  ideo  puto  ara  donatus, 
"  ne  aliquis  forsan  incultus  apud  illos  esset  Deus  :  Ut  belle  tamen 
"  hinc  instruendi  Gentiles  occasionem  captarit  apostolus.  Neque 
"  dubium  mihi  est,  quia  e  libix)  naturae  edocti  Deum  Summum  turn 
«  agnoverint,  tarn  coluerl?it  Gentiles."*  Thus  we  see  qiuim 
belle,  how  pleasant'y  our  author  proceeds.  He  tells  us  that  it  is 
hard  to  think,  though  the  apostle  expressly  says  so,  that  this  iin- 
known  God  was  the  God  of  the  Jews.  But  if  we  will  not  stand 
to  our  author's  word,  then  he  tells  us  what  some  scriptures  he  had 
formerly  cited  prove  ;  viz.  Acts  x.  passim  Acts  xvii.  28,  29- 
Rom.  i.  19.  But  we  have  above  shewed,  that  these  are  not  so  for 
our  author's  purpose.  Well,  what  then  remains  ?  Nothing,  but 
only  this,  "  I  have  no  doubt,"  says  he,  "  but  they  kneAV  the  true 
**  God."  But  our  author's  certainty  will  not  satisfy  another;  and 
we  just  now  shewed,  that  our  author  was  not  so  fully  sure  as  he 
pretends  to  be  in  this  place.  But  yet  our  apostle,  he  tells  us, 
took  very  handsomely  occasion  hence  to  instruct  the  Gentiles  ;  that 
is,  if  we  believe  our  autiior,  he  took  occasion  from  a  false  supposi 
tion  to  instruct  them.  But  it  is  a  kindness  that  he  used  any  com- 
pliment, though  a  ridiculous  one.     But  leaving  this,  I  go  on. 

4.  They  among  the  nations,  who  owned  One  Supreme  God, 
did  frequently,  if  not  for  most  part,  put  some  others  in  the  room 
of  the  True  God.  Some  made  the  World  God.  This  is  what 
Balbus  the  Stoick  sets  up  for  with  all  his  might  in  Cicero's  second 
book  de  Nat.  Deor.  throughout.  "  Atqui  certe  nihil  omnium  re- 
*<  rum  melius  est,  Mundo,  nihil  prsestabilius,  nihil  pulchrius  :  Nee 
"  solum  nihil  est,  nee  excogitari  quidem  quicquam  melius  potest :  Et 
"  si  ratione  &  sapientia  nihil  est  melius,  necesse  est  hsec  Inesse  eo, 
"  quod  optimum  esse  concedimus  :"f  And  therefore  a  little  after 
he  concludes  the  World  God.     Cicero  himself  was  of  the   same 


*  "  It  was  rather  somewhat  hard  to  refer  the  unkno^vn  God  of  the  Atheni- 
"  ans  to  the  God  of  the  Jews,  as  the  former  places  of  holy  scripture  prove 
"  that  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  was  the  same  with  tiiat  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
**  common  God  of  all  men.  Fur  this  unknown  God  of  the  Athenians  was 
"  certainly  another  one,  and  I  suppose  was  honored  with  an  altar  for  this  rea- 
"  son,  that  no  god  perhaps  mip^ht  be  without  worship  among  them.  Yet  howr 
•'  prettily  does  the  apostle  take  an  opportunity  from  hence  of  instructing  the 
"  Gentiles.  Nor  is  it  doubtful  with  me,  that  the  Gentiles,  taught  by  the  book 
"  of  nature,  both  acknowledged  and  worshipped  the  Supreme  God." 

t  "  And  certainly  none  of  all  things  is  better  than  the  World,  nothing  is 
"  more  excellent,  nothing  is  more  beautiful  ;  and  not  only  nothing  exists, 
"  but  nothing  can  be  imagined  that  is  better  than  the  World.  And  if  nothing 
"  is  better  than  Reason  and  Wisdom,  these  qualities  mast  necessarily  be  con- 
"  ceived  to  belong  to  that  which  we  acknowledge  to  be  the  b«st  of  a,U 
"  things." 

33 


25^fr  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

niind  :  For  when  Velleius  the  Epicurean  had  been  heard  and  re- 
futetl  by  Cotta  the  Academic  ;  and  Epicurus's  wild  opinions  about 
the  gods,  had  been  fully  exposed,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  first 
book  ;  Balbus  the  Stoick  proposes  and  defends  the  Stoicks'  opin- 
ion about  the  nature,  being,  and  number  of  the  gods,,  and  their 
providence,  and  defends  it  after  the  best  manner  he  can,  (where, 
by  the  way,  there  is  not  one  word  of  the  true  God,  but  a  full  dis- 
covery of  the  grossest  ignorance  of  him,  and  the  greatest  wicked- 
ness and  folly  in  asserting  a  plurality  of  gods,  and  parting  all  the 
excellencies  of  tlie  true  God  among  them.)  This  makes  up  the 
second  book.  In  the  third  book,  Cotta  the  Academic,  disputes 
against,  and  exposes  the  Stoicks'  opinion,  as  defended  by  Balbus ; 
and  in  the  last  sentence  of  the  book,  Cicero  gives  his  sTrtKp'ia-n  or 
censure  of  the  whole  in  these  words,  "  Hac  cum  essent  dicta,  ita 
'?  dicessimus,  ut  Velleo  Cottse  disputatio  verior,  mihi  Balbi  ad 
"  verltatis  similitudinem  videretur  esse  propensior."*  Velleius 
llie  Epicurean  favours  Cotta,  w  ho  disproved  the  whole  opinions 
about  the  gods,  and  put  no  better  in  their  place.  And  Cicero 
was  pleased  with  Balbus,  who  maintained  the  Stoicks^  sentimenis. 
What  they  were  we  have  just  now  noted.  And  whether  Plato, 
Aristotle,  yea  and  Socrates  w^ere  not  of  the  same  opinion,  is  not 
so  very  clear.  Certain  it  is,  that  they  paid  a  Uttle  too  great  re- 
spect to  the  world,  if  they  were  not.  Let  us  hear  our  author. 
Plato  in  Timao  et  Legibus  dicit  ^^  mimdum  deitm  esse  Sr  calum  <S" 
ostra.,  <^'C.f  But  whatever  were  their  sentiments,  it  is  not  of  so 
great  consequence  to  the  question  under  consideration,  to  spend 
time  in  inquiring,  since  it  is  evident  that  many  were  of  this  opinion. 
Others  thought  that  the  heaven  was  God,  and  this  is  owned  by 
Ennius  the  poet,  quoted  by  our  author,  in  that  noted  verse  so  fre- 
quently mentioned  by  Cicero,  Aspice  hoc  Sublime  Candens,  qtiem 
omnes  invofant  Jovem.i.  And  there  also  he  tells  us  of  an  old  in- 
scription found  at  Rome,  Optimus  Blaxiinus  Callus  ^ternus. 
"l^hus  we  see  the  heavens  dignified  with  those  very  epithets,  a\  Inch 
OTU"  author  pretends  to  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Supreme  God. 
And  he  tells  us,  that  some  are  of  opinion,  that  Pythagoras  in- 
clined this  way  :  and  our  author  leaves  it  in  doubt.  If  Aristotle 
and  Plato  were  not  of  this  mind,  that  the  heavens  were  the  Su- 
preme God,  as  we  see  some  others  were  ;  yet  they  did  own  hea- 
ven for  God,  and  to  be  worshipped  as  such.  "  Sed  rwn  solum- 
"  modi  ccElum  divino  honore  colmidum  decreverant  sacerdoies,  sed 
"  et  i})si  philosophi  ceJebriores,  adeo  ut  non  St^garita  tantum,  sed 


*  "  when  those  things  had  been  said,  we  parted,  but  so  that  the  discourse 
•'  of  Cotta  seemed  to  Velleius  to  be  nearer  the  truth,  but  that  of  Balbus  seera- 
V  ed  to  me  to  approach  more  nearly  to  the  likeness  of  truth." 
.  -J-  l)c  Relig.  Gent.  pag.  39. 

•t  Ibidj.  pag.  54. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      259' 

''  Ennins  ejus  prccreptor  ila  slatuerinty-'^  But  the  most  preva- 
"  lent  opinion  was,  Ihnl  the  sun  was  the  one  true  and  Supreme  God. 
That  many,  and  perhaps  most  nations  thought  so,  the  testimonies 
above  alleged  fully  prove,  and  we  have  heard  our  author  confes- 
sing it  as  to  some.  I  shall  only  add  a  few  remarks  more  to  this 
purpose.  There  is  a  quotation  of  Macrobius,  which  I  find  in  our 
author,  that  is  worth  noticing,  "  Assyri  (inquit  Macr.)  quem  Deum 
*'  Surnmum  Maximumq;  venerantur,  Adad  nomen  dederunt,  ejus 
"  nominis  interpraetatio  significat  unns.  Hunc  ergo  ut  potentissi- 
"  mum  adorant  Deum,  sed  subjungunt  deam  nomine  Atergatin  ; 
*'  omnenique  potestatem  hisce  duobus  attribuunt,  solem  terramque 
"  intelligentes."f  And  our  author  further  acquaints  us  as  to  the 
Persians,  "  Quod  Persae  duo  principia  statuebant,  Oromazen  scil. 
"  tanqiiam  boni  fontem  :  Et  Arimanium,  mali. — Inter  quos  medi- 
"  tim  it  quasi  arbitrum  posuere  solem. "J  I  Lave  in  the  close  of 
our  former  chapter,  quoted  a  notable  passage  from  our  author  to 
the  same  purpose,  wherein  he  tells  us,  that  all  the  names  of  the  ti*ue 
God,  were  ascribed  to  the  sun.  Of  the  same  opinion  were  the 
Phaenicians,  Britains  of  old,  and  their  famed  Druids,  and  perhaps 
most  nations.  Yea,  so  deeply  did  this  fix  its  rools  in  the  minds  of 
most,  that  the  greatestof  the  Heathen  philosophers  can  scarcely  be 
free<l  from  an  inclination  this  way.§  Plato  tells  us,  how  devout 
Socrates  was  in  the  v.'orship  of  the  sun,  and  that  several  times  he 
fell  into  an  extasy,  while  thus  employed. ||  Nor  are  the  famous  In- 
dian philosophers  one  whit  more  wise.  "  Not  only  the  Brachmans,' 
"  but  all  the  Indians,  yea  and  the  famed  Appolloniiis  (wliom  the 
"  Heathens  compared  to  our  blessed  Lord,  most  blasphemously 
"  and  groundlessly)  worshipped  the  sun."**  And  we  have  Ap- 
poUonius's  prayer  to  the  sun,  recorded  by  Philostratus  in  his  life. 
Lib.  1.  O  Summe  sol,  eo  terrarnm  m'dle,  quS  me  prof edurum  esse 
cognoscis,  Sc  concede,  precor,  ut  viros'  bonos,  agnoscam;  impro- 
bos  vero  neq;  agnoscam,  neq;  agnoscar  ah  i7/o.<?.|f  Yea  after  the 

*  Dc  Relig'.  Gent.  pag-.  19. — "  But  not  only  were  tlie  priests  of  opinion  that  • 
"  the  heaven  ouglit  to  be  worshipped  with  divine  honors,  but  also  tlie  most 
■"  famous  philosophers,  so  that  not  only  the  Stug'yrite  but  his   master  before 
"  him,  was  of  that  opinion." 

f  Ibid.  pag.  2-1. — "  The  Assyrians,  say.s  Macrobius,  gave  the  name  Adad, 
"  which,  signifies  one,  to  that  Being  whom  they  held  to  be  the  supreme  and 
*'  greatest  God.     Therefore  they  adore  him  as  the  most  powerful  God,  but , 
"  they  add  to  him  a  goddess  named  Aiergates,  and  ascribe  all  power  to  these 
"  two,  meaning  the  sun  and  the  earth." 

+  Ibid  pag.  28.—"  That  the  Persians  hold  two  first  principles,  to  wit,  Aro- 
"  mazes  as  the  fountain  of  good,  and  Arimanius  of  evil,  betwixt  whom  they 
"  placed  the  sim  in  the  middle,  and  as  it  were  an  arbiter." 

§  This  is  fully  proven  by  Dr.  Owen,  Hornbeck  and  others,  in  their  books 
formerly  referred  to.      .||  See  Owen's  Theolog.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  4.  pag.  182. 

**  Hornbeck  pag.  31. 

tt  "  O  supreme  sun,  .send  me  to  that  part  of  the  world,  to  which  you  know 
"  1  am  going,  and  grant,  I  pray,  that  I  may  know  good  men,  but  that  I  may 
"  neither  know  bad  men,  nor  be  known  bv  them." 


260  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

light  of  the  glorious  gospel  had  cleared  the  philosopher's  eyes,  and 
made  them  ashamed  of  much  of  their  religion,  yet  even  the  Pla- 
tonick  philosophers  could  not  quit  the  thoughts  of  the  sun's  being 
God."* 

But  not  only  did  some  look  on  the  sun  as  the  Supreme  God  ; 
but  (if  we  may  believe  Hornbcck,  who  was  at  great  pains  to  under- 
stand the  religions  of  the  world,  and  particularly  of  America)  se- 
veral nations  in  America,  particularly  the  inhabitants  of  New- 
France,  and  they  who  inhabit  about  the  river  Sagadahoc,  worship 
principally  the  devil  or  a  malignant  spirit. f 

Thus  we  have  fully  demonstrated  what  we  undertook,  and 
hereby  quite  spoiled  the  whole  story  of  an  universal  religion :  And 
our  author  has  been  so  unhappy,  as  to  lay  to  our  hands  many  of 
the  arguments,  whereby  we  have  disproved  his  own  position.  This 
step  being  once  gained,  we  shall  be  more  brief  in  the  consideration 
of  the  remaining  articles  :  For  they  all  fall  with  this.  If  there  is 
a  mistake  as  to  this,  there  can  remain  nothing  sincere  in  religion. 
If  the  true  God  is  not  known,  he  cannot  be  worshipped,  and  re^ 
wards  and  punishments  cannot  be  expected  from  him  ;  nor  can  we 
be  sensible  of,  or  sorry  for  any  offence  done  against  him.  So 
that  we  might  stop  here,  as  having  ruined  wholly  that  cause  our 
author  undertook  to  defend  :  But  we  shall  consider  the  rest  also. 

ARTICLE     II. 

It  was  not  universally  agreed  that  the  One  True  God  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped. 

How  could  they  ae;ree  as  to  the  worshipping  of  him  whom  they 
did  not  krow  to  be  ?  K"  it  would  not  frighten  the  persons  concerned, 
I  might  here  pertinently  ask  them  the  question  the  apostle  puts, 
Rom.  X.  14.  How  shall  they  call  on  him,  in  whom  they  have  not 
believed.''  And  how  shall  they  believe  in  him,  of  whom  they  have 
not  heard  ? 

And  further,  even  they  who  owned  one  supreme  God,  many  of 
them  entertained  such  notions  of  him,  as  njadc  him  unworthy  of 
any  worship.  He  tel's  us  that  many  of  them  locked  him  up  in 
heaven,  denying  his  providence  ;  and  one  would  almost  tliink  onr 
author  had  been  of  their  opinion,  while  lie  tells  us,  "  Rede  dictum 
fst  oliiri,  quod  Sternum  Bealumque  est  nee  negotii  quicqvam  ha- 
bere, ne  exhiberi  alteri.":^      But  whatever  our  author's  thoughts 

*  Owen  iibi  supra.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  5.  pag.  194. 
7  Hornbeck  de  Conver.  Gentil.  Lib.  1.  Cap.  9.  pag-.  70,  71. 
t  Ue  llL-lig-.  Gent.  pag.  174. — "  It  was  Avell  said  of  old,  that  a  beinf^  that 
is  eternal  and  happj',  neither  has  any  trouble  in  itself,  nor  gives  any  tsoubl^- 

to.  another," 


PRINCIPLES  OB'  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      261 

were,  it  is  well  known,  that  this  opinion  prevailed  very  far,  and 
obtained  amongst  many,  if  not  most  nations,  who  owned  one  su- 
preme God  besides  the  sun.  And  they  were  further  of  opinion, 
that  God  had  committed  the  whole  management  of  the  world  to 
deputies.  Our  author  informs  us,  that  the  ancient  Heathens  divid- 
ed their  gods  into  super-celestial,  celestial,  and  sub-celestial  ;f  and 
lie  tells  us,  that  the  chief  god,  and  his  companions  the  super-celes- 
tial gods,  have  not  any  such  concernment  in,  or  regard  to  the  things 
that  are  transacted  in  this  world,  as  to  make  them  take  any  notice 
of  them ;  and  that  the  Supreme  God  has  withdrawn  himself  and 
the  super-celestial  gods  from  the  view  of  mortals,  as  being  of  too 
sublime  a  nature  to  be  known  by  them  ;  and  that  he  has  deputed 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  to  inspect  the  world,  as  the  only  gods 
who  can  be  enjoyed  by  men.  "  Deum  summum  vero  seipsum  su- 
percoelestesq  ;  Deos  a  conspectu  mortalium  removisse,  quod  sub- 
limes adeo  essent  naturae,  ut  nulla  cos  acies,  satis  pertingeret,  ejus 
loco  non  in  conspectum  solum,  sed  in  fruitioiiem  quandam  produx- 
isse  deos  illos  coelestes,  qui  a  nobis  sol,  luna,  coelum,  &c.  vocantur."J 
And  the  Indian  Brachrains  seem  indeed  to  be  of  the  same  mind,  as 
we  know  the  whole  followers  of  Epicurus  were.||  Yea  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Calicut,  a  kingdom  in  the  East-Indies,  are  so  absurd  as  to 
imagine  that  the  devil  is  God's  deputy,  to  whom  the  government 
of  the  world  is  committed.  And  hence  they  worship  the  devil 
principally,  (as  likewise  do  the  kingdoms  of  Decum  and  Narsinga) 
and  "  their  king  has  in  his  oratory  the  image  of  the  devil  with  a 
crown  on  his  head,  so  very  frightful,  that  the  most  resolute  tremble 
at  the  sight  of  it :  the  wall  is  all  painted  with  lesser  devils  ;  and  in 
each  corner  stands  one  of  brass,  so  well  done,  that  it  seems  all  in 
flames."**  Now  if  such  notions  are  entertained  of  God,  it  is  no 
wonder  though  he  be  by  many  thought  not  worth  the  worshipping. 
The  consequences  of  those  apprehensions  I  cannot  better  express, 
than  Cicero  has  done  in  the  very  begiiming  of  his  first  book  de  Nat. 
Deorum.  "  Sunt  enim  philosophi,  &  fuerunt,  qui  omnino  nullam 
habere  censerent  humanarum  rerum  procurationem  deos  :  Quorum 
si  vera  sentensia  est,  quje  potest  esse  pietas  ?  Q,uk  sanctitas  ?  Quie 
religio?  si  dii  neque  possunt  nos  juvare,  nee  volunt,  nee  ciirant 
oranlno,  nee  quid  agamus  animadvertant  ;  nee  est  quod  ab  his  ad 
hominum  vitani  permanare  possit :  Quod  est,  quod  ullos  diis  im- 

t  De  Relig  Gent.  pag.  170. 

+  Ibid,  pag.  171.—"  But  that  the  supreme  God  had  withdrawn  himself  and 
the  other  super -celestial  gods  from  the  sight  of  mortals,  because  tliey  were  of 
so  sublime  a  nature  that  no  human  eye  could  sufficiently  reach  them  ;  but 
that  l)e  had  set  up  in  his  place,  not  only  for  our  knowledge,  but  fruition,  those 
celestial  gods,  which  are  called  by  us  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  heaven,  fcc" 

II  Hornbeck,  page  40. 

**  See  Calicut,  in  Great.  Geograph.  .Diction. 


262  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

mortallbus  cullus,  honores,  preces  adbibeamus  ?*'*  And  miich^ 
more  to  the  same  purpose.  Though  he  speaks  of  a  plurality  of 
gods,  yet  what  he  says  holds  true  as  to  the  case  in  hand  :  for  if  we 
entertain,  or  if  the  Gentiles  did  entertain,  as  we  see  some  of  them 
did,  such  notions  of  their  supreme  God,  as  lie  here  speaks  of,  the 
same  consequences  must  follow ;  and  it  is  not  credible  that  any, ' 
who  thought  so,  could  judge  the  Supreme  God  worthy  of  worship. 
And  indeed  we  find  them  no  way  concerned  about  it. 

In  fine  not  a  few  of  the  wiser,  who  entertained  the  most  just 
thoughts  of  God  of  any,  yet  being  in  the  dark  as  to  the  way  of 
worshipping  God,  have  declared  against  imy  worship,  at  least  in 
practice,  till  it  should  by  himself  be  condescended  on.  Thus  it  is 
as  to  the  wiser  sort  amoi;g  the  Chinese — "  De  Deo  eoque  colendo 
noji  sunt  soliciti.  Ummi  quidera  agnoscunt  Summum  Numen,  a 
quo  omnia  conservari  &  regi  credunt ;  Sed,  quia  quomodo  coli 
velft,  ignOrare  se  profitentur  ;  satius  autumant  cultum  ejus  omit- 
tere,  quam  in  eo  designando  errare."f  And  perhaps  the  best  phi- 
losophers in  other  nations  were  not  of  a  different  mind.  Thus  we 
see  how  far  they  were  from  being  agreed  about  this  article. 

ARTICLE      III. 

The  Gentile   World  mere  not  agreed  in  judging  that  Vivtiie  and 
Piety  are  the  principal  parts  of  the  ivorship  of  God. 

How  it  should  come  into  our  author's  head  to  think  that  they 
were  agreed,  is  a  little  strange^  considering  how  little  is  tobefoimd 
among  their  writers  that  looks  this  way.  But  I  suppose  the  case 
was  this,  he  had  concluded  that  they  were  agreed  about  the  being 
of  One  True  God,  and  to  make  his  religion  complete  he  behoved  to 
have  them  some  way  agreed  about  hi»  worship  ioo.  But  he  found 
them  endlessly  divided  about  their  solemn  worship,  and  none  of  it 
directed  to  the  one  true  God,  but  all  expressly  aimed  at  other 
Ihings  :  wherefore  there  was  no  other  thing  left  that  could  be  to  his 
purpose  ;  and  therefore  he  finding  that  there  was  somewhat  that 
all  the  world  agreed  in,  paying  some  respect  to,  at  least,  in  words, 


*  "  For  there  are  and  have  been  philosopliers,  who  think  that  tlie  gods  take 
no  care  at  all  of  human  afFaii's,  and  if  their  opinion  be  true,  what  piety  can  , 
there  be  ?  or  wlip*^  sanctity  ?  whatrelig'ion  ?  if  the  gods  neither  can,  nor  wijl 
help  us,  nor  observe  what  we  do  ;  nor  is  there  any  tliinsjthat  can  come  from 
them  into  human  life.  What  reason  is  there  then,  why  we  should  offer  any 
worship,  honors  or  prayers  to  the  immortal  gods  ?" 

t  liovubeck  ubi  supra,  ]5ag.'47." — "  TJiey  Jiave  no  anxiet}- about  God  or  his 
worship.  They  acknowledge  indeed  one  Supreme  Deity,  by  whom  they  tliink 
that  all  things  are  preserved  and  governed  ;  but  as  they  profess  that  they  do 
not  know  in  wliat  manner  he  cluises  to  be  worshipped,  tlicy  tliink  it  better  to 
let  aloiie  his  worship  aUogethcr,  than  to  err  in  determining  it." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      263 

upder  the  name  of  virtue  ;  lie  would  needs  appropriate  this  to  the 
True  God  for  his  worship,  though  he  has  no  warrant  from  the  Gen- 
tiles to  do  so.  And  truly  after  all,  if  this  was  the  worship  of  the 
True  God,  or  designed  as  such,  whatever  agreement  there  might  be 
in  opinion  about  the  Worship  of  the  one  True  God,  I  think  there 
was  none  in  practice,  if  not  in  a  total  neglect  of  it :  For  how  few 
were  there,  who  can  have  the  least  pretence  to  challenge  that  name 
amongst  all  those,  whose  names  have  been  transmitted  to  us  !  How 
truewas  the  poet  Juvenal's  observation, 

• 
Rari  quippe  boni,  numero  vlx  sunt  totidem  quot 
Thebarum  portae,  divitis  vel  ostia  Nili.* 

But  to  leave  thisj  and  come  to  the  point  in  hand  somewhat  more 
closefy, 

1 .  It  is  evident  that  the  world  was  very  far  from  being  agreed, 
that  there  is  0»e  God  :  Far  more  were  they  divided  about  the  ac- 
kiK>wledgment  of  the  True  God,  and  whom  they  should  own  as 
such.  It  was  therefore  utterly  impossible  that  they  should  conde- 
scend on  this,  as  a  principal  part  of  the  worship  of  God,  whom 
they  did  not  know  to  have  any  being. 

2.  So  far  were  they  from  looking  on  virtue  as  Uie  principal  part 
of  the  worship  of  the  gods,  whom  they  owned,  that  the  worship  of 
many  of  their  gods,  was  thought  to  consist  m  things  that  were 
cross  to  the  plainest  dictates  of  nature's  light.  Our  author  ac- 
quaints us  frequently  with  the  obscenities,  the  cruelties,  and  other 
extravagancies  of  their  worship.  The  obscenities  are  too  fulsome 
to  be  repeated.  The  furious  extravagancies,  religious,  or  rrther 
superstitious  fury  and  madness  used  in  the  worship  of  Bacchus, 
are  known  to  every  one.  And  for  their  cruelty,  who  knows  not 
that  human  sacrifices  were  almost  universally  used?  Some  offered 
captives,  some  offered  strangers,  some  sacrificed  their  dearest  rela- 
tions and  children,  and  that  in  the  most  cruel  manner.f 

3.  We  need  go  no  further  than  our  author's  book,  to  learn,  that 
most  nations  were  so  far  from  looking  on  virtue  as  any  part  of  the 
worship  due  to  any  of  those  gods  they  owned,  that  they  placed  it 
wlwlly  in  such  other  things,  as  our  author,  amongst  others,  has 
given  us  a  large  account  of.  * 

4.  They,  who  were  most  zealous  for  virtue,  were  very  far  from 
looking  on  it  as  a  part  of  the  worship  of  God,  or  directing  it  to  his 
glory.  I  believe  our  author,  were  he  alive,  for  all  his  reading 
would  find  it  diflScult  to  find  one  fair  testimony  to   this  purpose. 


*  "  For  good  men  arc  rare,  and  "scarcely  as  numerous  as  the  gates  of  Tli€- 
bes,  or  the  mouths  of  tlie  fertile  Nilt." 

t  Sco  this  fully  proven  in  the  learned  and  excellent  Dr.  Owen's  treatise  de 
■Tuntitiavimlicutrict',  frompag-.  66  to  100,  by  authentic  testimonies,  with  such 
remarks  as  may  be  worth  the  reading-. 


264  AN  INaUiRY  INTO  THE 

They  looked  not  on  themselves  as  debtors  to  God  for  their  vh-lue. 
Hence  Cotta,  after  he  has  acknowledged  that  we  are  indebted  to 
God  for  our  riches  and  eternal  enjoyments,  adds ;  "  Virtutem  au- 
tem  nemo  iinquam  acceptam  Deo  retulit,  nimirum  recte  :  Propter 
virtutem  enira  laudamur,  &  in  virtute  recte  gloriamur ;  quod  non 
contingeret,  si  id  donum  a  Deo  haberemus."  Hence  a  little  after, 
he  adds,  "  Nam  quis  quod  bonus  vir  esset,  gratias  diis  egit  un- 
quam  !"*  And  much  more  to  the  same  purpose.  They  thought 
that  their  virtue  made  them  equal  to  their  gods.  "  Hoc  est  quod 
philosophia  mihi  promittit,  «t  me  parem  Deo  faciat."f  Yea  not 
only  so,  but  they  pretended  their  virtues  placed  them  above  their 
gods.  "  Est  aliquid,  quo  sapiens  antecedat  deum,  ille  naturaae 
beneficio,  non  suo,  sapiens  est."  J  And  again,  "  Deus  non  vincit 
sapientem  felicitate,  etiamsi  vincit  setate  :  Non  enim  est  virtus  ma- 
jor, quae  longior."||.  Hence  they  will  not  have  us  so  much  as  to 
pray  to  God,  either  as  to  virtue  or  felicity.  It  is  a  mean  thing  to 
weary  the  gods.  "  Quid  votis  opus  est  ?  facto  felicem."'^*  And 
much  more  to  the  same  purpose. 

A  R  T  I  c  L  E     iv.^ 

It  did  not  universally  obtain,  that  repentance  is  a  sufficient  expia- 
tion ;  or,  that  me  must  repent  for  offences  done  against  the  true 
God. 

Our  author  has  acknowledged,  that  there  is  rarely  mention  of 
this  amongst  the  ancients  ;  and  we  have  already,  by  quotations 
from  him,  cleared  that  the  ancient  Heathens  did  not  think  it  a 
BufBcient  expiation,  and  indeed  that  it  was  of  no  great  considera- 
tion among  them,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  their  not  taking  any 
notice  of  it,  even  when  the  fairest  occasions  present  themselves. 
And  finally,  there  can  be  nothing  more  certain,  than  that  their  re- 
pentance could  not  aim  at  the  offence  done  to  the  true  God,  of 
whom  many  of  them  were  utterly  ignorant.  But  what  has  been 
said  is  sufficient  to  shov/  that  it  did  not  universally  obtain  in  any 
sense,  that  can  turn  to  any  account  to  the  Deists. 


M 


*  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor.  p.  mihi.  187.  Lib.  3. — '*  For  nobody  ever  confessed 
that  he  owed  his  virtue  to  God,  for  we  are  justly  praised  on  account  of  our' 
virtue,  and  we  justly  boast  of  it,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if  we  had  our 

virtue  as  a  gift  from  God Nor  did  any  body  ever  give  thanks  to  the  gods 

because  he  was  a  good  man." 

t  Seneca,  Epist.  48. — "  This  is  what  philosophy  promises  me,  to  make  me 
equal  to  Gcd." 

+  Idem,  Epist.  53. — "  There  is  something  in  which  a  wise  man  excels  God, 
that  the  former  is  wise  by  his  own  benefit,  but  the  latter  by  that  of  nature." 

II  Epist.  73. — "  God  does  not  exceed  a  wise  man  in  happiness,  though  lie 
exceeds  him  in  age,  for  virtue  is  not  the  greater  in  proportion  as  it  is  older." 

**  Epist.  51.—"  What  need  has  he  of  prayers  who  is  actually  happy." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     265 

ARTICLE    V. 

//  was  not  universally  agreed,  that  there  are  Rewards  and  Pxinish- 
menls  after  this  life. 

1.  HoTivtevER  many  there  were  that  maintained  the  immortaHty 
of  the  souls  of  men,  it  is  certain,  that  there  were  very  many  dis- 
sentients, who  were  of  a  different  mind,  and  that  of  all  sorts  of 
people. 

The  fumed  sects  among  the  Indians,  which  they  call  Schaerwae- 
sha^  Pasenda  and  Tschedca,  if  we  may  believe  Hornbeck  in  his 
account  of  them,  all  deny  a  future  state.* 

^«or  are  the  wise  Chinese,  at  least  many  of  them,  of  a  different 
mind.  They  are  divided  into  three  sects.  Thefirst  sect  of  their 
philosophers  are  the  followers  of  the  famed  Confucius  ;  their  mo- 
rals are  as  refined  as  perhaps  these  of  the  most  polite  parts  of  the 
world,  if  not  more.  But  as  to  the  soul,  they  seem  to  make  it  a 
part  of  God,  which  at  death  returns  to  that  first  Principle,  whence 
it  was  broke  off*.  Let  us  hear  Possevinus's  account  of  them.  As 
to  this  matter  he  says,  they  maintain,  "  Hominis  cor  esse  unam  & 
*'  eandem  rem  cum  illo  primo  rerum  principio;  cumque  homo  mori- 
"  tur,  cor  perire  prorsus  &  absmni,  superesse  tamen  ex  eo  primuni 
*'  priucipium,  quod  vitam  ante  conferebat."  And  further,  they 
maintain,  "  Posse  hominem  in  hac  vita  summam  principii  cogno- 
*'  scendiperfectionem  adipiscij&nieditando  pervenire  ad  maximam 
*'  vitse  tranquillitatem,  &  hoc  esse  summura  bonuni,  quod  donee 
*'  obtineat,  continuo  motu  agatnr,  8:  de  inferno  uno  in  aliuni  conji- 
"  ciatur,  usque  duni  contemplancio  &  meditando  ad  fastigium  per- 
"  venerit  tranquillitatis,  (|U£b  in  principio  illo  primo  est."f  These 
are  the  appiehensions  of  their  best  moralists. 

But  there  aie  two  other  sects,  that  plainly  declare  against  a  fu- 
ture state,  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  have  no  pros- 
pect beyond  tirne.J 

Of  this  same  opinion  were  not  only  single  persons,  but  many 
sects  of  the  ancient  philosophers,  whom  Cicero  mentions,  and  con- 
ludes  his  account  of  them  thus — "  His  sententiis  omnibus  nihil  post 
*'  mortem  pertiuere  ad  quemquam  potest  :  Pariter  enim  cum  vita 

*  Hornbeck,  pag.  34,  ubl  supra. 

f  Hornbeck,  pag.  47,  48. — "  That  the  heart  of  man  is  one  and  the  same 
"  thing'  with  that  first  Principle  of  things,  and  that  when  a  man  dies,  his  he.irt 
"  quite  perishes  and  is  consumed,  vet  that  t]ie  first  Principle  of  it  remains, 
"  which  formerly  gave  him  life.  »  »  *  That  a  man  may  in  this  life 
"  attain  to  the  higlu-st  perfection  of  the  principle  of  knowledge,  and  arrive 
'*  by  mcdiUition  to  the  greatest  tranquillity  of  life,  and  that   until  he  obtain 

this,  he  is  agitated  by  a  perpetual  motion,  and  thrown  fi-om  one  hell  into 
"  anotlier,  till  by  contemplation  and  meditation  he  arrive  at  the  summit  el" 
**  tranquillity  wjuca  is  in  that  first  Prbiciple  " 

t  Ibid.  pag.  48,  49. 

34 


266  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  seusus  amlttitiir."*  And  a  little  after,  speaking  of  the  opposition 
made  to  Plato's  opinion  about  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  he  says, 
"  Sed  plurimi  contra  (Platonis  scil.  sententiam)  nituntur,  animosq ; 
"  quasi  capite  damnatos  morte  niulctant."  And  some  passages  af- 
ter, speaking  of  the  same  opinion,  he  says,  "  Catervse  veniunt  con- 
"  tradicentium,  non  solum  Epicureorum,  quos  equidetn  non  despi- 
"  cio,  sed  nescio  quomodo  doctissiraus  quisque  contemnit.  Acer- 
"  rime  autem  deliciae  mese,  dico  Archias,  contra  banc  iramortalita- 
"  tern  disi^eruit :  Is  enim  tres  llbros  scripsit,  qui  Lesbiaci  vocan- 
"  tur,  quod  Metylenis  sermo  habetur :  In  quibus  vult  efficere  ani- 
"  imos  esse  mortales  :  Stoici  autem  usuram  nobis  tanquam  corni- 
"  cibus  :  Diu  mansuros  aiunt  animos,  semper  negant."f 

Nor  were  they  otherwise  minded,  many  of  them  in  Greece. 
When  Socrates  vents  his  opinion  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
that  day  before  he  died,  Cebes,  one  of  his  disciples,  who  is  the 
conferrer,  or  one  of  them  at  least  that  maintains  the  discourse  with 
him,  addresses  him  in  these  words  :  "  Socrates,  I  subscribe  to  the 
"  truth  of  all  you  have  said.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  men 
"  look  upon  as  incredible,  viz.  what  you  advanced  of  the  soul :  for 
"  almost  every  body  fancies,  that  when  the  soul  parts  from  the  bo- 
♦'  dy  it  is  no  more,  it  dies  along  with  it ;  in  the  very  minute  of 
"  parting  it  vanishes  like  a  vapour  or  smoke,  which  flies  off  and 
"  disperses,  and  has  no  existence."^ 
100. 

Yea,  I^liny,  Strabo,  and  many  others,  declare  against  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul ;  nay,  Pliny  on  set  purpose  disputes  against 
it.ll 

And  the  poets  go  the  same  way.  It  were  easy  to  multiply  proofs 
of  this  from  them.  Seneca  speaks  the  mind  of  many  of  them,  though 
perhaps  not  his  own.     Trajcs,  Troa,  A.  I. 

Post  mortem  nihil  est,  ipsaque  mors  niliil, 
Velocis  spatll  meta  novissima. 
Qujeris  quo  jaceas  post  obitum  loco  ? 

Quo  non  mala  jacent.     Et 
Tempus  nos  avidum  devorat  &  chaos. 


*  Cicero,  Tusc.  Quest,  l.pag.  329.—"  From  all  these  opinions,  nothing  after 
"  death  can  be  interesting  to  any  one,  for  sensation  is  lost  together  with 
"  life." 

t  "  Crowds  of  opposers  come  against  me,  not  only  of  the  Epicureans,  whom 
"  indeed  I  do  not  despise,  but  I  know  not  how  every  most  learned  man  despi- 
"  ses  them.  For  my  darling,  I  mean  Archais,  has  disputed  very  eagerly  against 
"  this  immortality.  He  wrote  three  books,  which  are  called  Lesbian,  because 
"  the  discourse  is  held  at  Mytelene,  in  which  he  endeavored  to  prove  that  the 
"  souls  of  men  are  mortal.  But  the  Stoicks  only  give  them  a  long  life  like  the 
"  crows— they  say  that  souls  will  live  a  long  time,  but  they  deny  that  they 
"  will  live  for  ever." 

+  Plato's  Phed67i  done  into  English  from  M,  Dacier's  Trans,  vol.  2.  page  100- 

II  Oweni  Theolog.  Lib.  1.  C.  pag.  ir4. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      267 

Mors  individua  est,  noxia  corpori, 
Nee  parcens  anims.* 

Persius  and  all  the  poets  made  use  of  this  as  an  encouragement 
to  give  way  to  themselves,  in  whatever  lust  prompted  them  to. 

Indulge  genio,  carpamus  dulciaj  nostrum  est 
Quod  vivis,  cinis,  &  manes,  &  fabula  fies.§ 

If  it  be  said  that  this  is  an  irony,  and  that  he  was  not  in  earnest, 
it  iB  easy  to  multiply  quotations  to  this  purpose  from  Horace,  Ca- 
tullus, and  most  of  the  poets,  which  are  not  capable  of  any  such 
construction.     But  I  forbear. 

And  although  Cicero  was  for  the  immortality  of  the  soul ;  yet 
in  his  first  book  of  Tusciilan  Questions,  he  plainly  derides  the 
whole  business  of  rewards  and  punishments  after  this  life  ;  as  any 
one  who  will  attentively  peruse  it  may  see.  I  forbear  to  transcribe 
the  passage  ;  because  I  behoved  to  transcribe  much  to  shew  the 
tendency  of  the  discourse.  He  plainly  tells  us,  that  he  could  be 
eloquent,  if  he  had  a  mind  to  speak  against  those  things  ;  Diser- 
tus  esse  possum,  si  contra  ista  dicer em.\\  The  case  is  plainly  this  : 
That  person  to  whom  he  discourses  looks  on  death  as  an  evil.  Ci- 
cero tells  him  that  perhaps  it  is  because  he  fears  those  punishments 
after  this  life,  which  the  vulgar  believed  ;  and  after  he  has  tartly 
ridiculed  them,  he  concludes,  That  had  he  a  mind,  he  could  en- 
large against  those  things,  and  plainly  expose  the  whole  tradition. 

But  because  some  talk  so  much  of  Plato,  Socrates,  Cicero,  and 
we  get  so  many  quotations  from  them  about  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  and  a  future  state  ;  I  shall  here  represent  their  own  opinion 
somewhat  more  fully. 

As  for  Socrates,  he  has  not  writ  any  thing  that  is  come  to  our 
hands  ;  all  the  accounts  we  have  of  him  are  from  Plato,  Xenophon 
and  others,  but  especially  Plato  his  scholar,  who  was  with  him  at 
his  death  :  From  him  then  we  shall  learn  at  once,  what  both  his 
master's  opinion  and  his  own  were  in  this  matter. 

When  Socrates  is  making  his  apology  before  his  judges,  he  tells 
them,  "  That  to  fear  death,  is  nothing  else,  but  to  believe  one's 
"  self  to  be  wise,  when  they  are  not ;  and  to  fancy  that  they  know 
•'  what  they  do  not  know.  In  effect,  nobody  knows  death ;  no  bo- 
"  dy  can  tell,  but  it  may  be  the  greatest  benefit  of  mankind  ;  and 

*  "  There  is  nothing  after  death,  and  death  itself  is  nothing,  being  only  the 
"  last  stage  of  our  swift  course.  Do  you  ask  in  what  place  you  are  to  lie  af- 
"  ter  death  ?  In  that  place  evils  do  not  lie,  and  greedy  time  and  chance  devours 
"  us.  "Death  is  a  divider,  which  hurts  the  body  and  does  not  spare  the  soul." 

§  "  Indulge  your  inclination,  let  us  enjoy  pleasures ;  this  span  of  life  that 
•'  we  enjoy  is  ours,  you  will  soon  become  ashes,  a  shade  and  a  fable." 

!!  Tuscul.    Quest.  Lib.  1.  a  little  from  the  beginning,  pag.  mihi  312. 


268  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  yet  men  are  afraid  of  it,  as  if  they  knew  certainly  that  it  was  the 
"  greatest  of  evils."*  And  a  little  after,  speaking  of  death, 
"  What  !  should  I  be  afraid  of  the  punishment  adjudged  by  Meli- 
"  tus,  a  punishment  I  cannot  possitively  say  whether  it  is  good  or 
*<  evil  ?"f  And  thus  he  concludes  his  apology.  "  But  now,  it  is 
*'  true  we  should  all  retire  to  our  respective  offices,  you  to  live,  and 
*'  I  to  die.  But  whether  you  or  I  are  going  upon  the  better  expe- 
^'  dition,  it  is  known  to  none,  but  God  alone."  J 

Again,  in  that  famed  discourse  on  this  subject,  before  his  death, 
after  he  has  produced  all  the  arguments  he  can  for  the  immortalily 
of  the  soul,  he  tells  us  pretty  plainly,  how  things  stood  with  him. 
♦<  Convincing  the  audience  of  Avhat  1  advance,  is  not  only  my  aim  ; 
*'  indeed  I  shall  be  infinitely  glad  that  it  come  to  pass  ;  but  my 
"  chief  scope  is  to  persuade  myself  of  the  truth  of  these  things ; 
*'  for  I  argue  thus,  my  dear  Phedon,  and  you  will  find  that  this 
^'  way  of  arguing  is  highly  useful,  (very  true  to  folk  that  are  not 
*'  certain  and  can  do  no  better,  and  only  to  these.)  If  my  pro- 
"  positions  prove  true,  it  is  well  done  to  believe  them,  and  if  after 
*'  my  death  they  be  found  false,  I  will  reap  that  advantage  in  this 
*'  life,  that  I  have  been  less  afflicted  by  the  evils  Avhich  commonly 
^'  accompany  it.  But  I  shall  not  remain  long  under  this  ignorance. "j[ 
And  when  he  is  near  his  close,  and  just  about  to  take  the  poison, 
or  a  little  before,  having  represented  his  thoughts  about  rewards 
and  punishments  after  this  life,  which  are  little  better  than  those  of 
the  poets,  he  concludes  his  account  in  these  words  ;  "  No  man  of 
*'  sense  can  pretend  to  assure  you,  that  all  these  things  are  just  as 
"  you  have  heard.  But  all  thinking  men  will  be  positive,  that  the 
*'  state  of  the  soul,  and  the  place  of  its  abode,  is  absolutely  such 
*'  as  I  represent  it  to  be,  or  at  least  very  near  it," — provided  the 
soul  be  immortal. 

More  might  be  alledged  to  the  same  purpose  ;  but  this  is  suffi- 
cient to  let  us  see  how  wavering  Plato  and  his  master  Socrates 
were.  They  talk  confidently  sometimes  ;  but  presently  they  sink 
again.  Let  us  next  see  what  Cicero's  mind  Avas.  lie  treats  this 
subject  on  set  purpose,  in  his  first  book  of  Tusculan  Questions, 
which  is  wholly  spent  on  this  subject.  He  undertakes  to  shew 
and  prove  against  the  person  whom  he  instructs,  that  death  is  not 
ttn  evil,  whether  we  are  dissohed  quite  or  not :  and  having,  as  he 
fancies,  proven  that  death  is  not  an  evil,  he  proceeds,  and  gives  us 
this  account  of  his  undertaking  : — "  I  shall  teach  you,  (speaking  of 
"  death)  if  I  can,  si  posst//?,  that  it  is  not  only  not  an  evil ,  but  a 
g-oof/."**  But  a  little  after  he  tells  us  clearly  what  we  may  expect 


*  Dacier's  Plato,  Vol.  ?.  page  23.  Soci-ates'  Apolog-}' 
r  Ibitl.  pace  40.  i  Ibid,  pag'c  47. 

(I  Pluto's  PhcdoTi.pa^c  135,  136.' 
'*  Pag-e  3?J. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     269 

from  him,  when  his  hearer  exhorts  him  to  go  on  ;  says  he,  Qeram 
tibi  morem,  <f^  ea  qu(Z  vis,  tit  potero,  explicaho  :  Nee  tameu  quasi 
Pythius  Apollo,  certa  ut  sint,  Sr  Jixa,  qu(B  dixero  :  Sed  ut  homun- 
alius  unus  e  nmltis  probabilia  conjedura  sequens,  ultra  enim  quo 
progrcdiarf  quam  ut  verisimilia  videam,  non  habeo  :  Certa  diceM 
ii  qui  d?'  percipi  ea  posse  dicunt,  Sr  se  sapientes  esse  projitcntur.'* 
And  speaking  about  this  opinion,  his  auditor  tells  him,  how  plea- 
sant this  is  to  him.  It  will  be  a  little  pleasant  to  hear  them  speak. 
A.  Me  vera  delectat :  Idque  primum  ita  esse  C soil,  animos  esse 
immortales  :)  Deinde  eiiamsi  non  sit,  mihi  tamen  perfiiaderi  vel- 
im.  M.  Quid  tibi  ergo  opera  nostra  opus  est  ?  Num  eloquentia 
Platonem  superare  possumus  ?  Evolve  diligenter  ejus  eum  lib- 
rum,  qui  est  de  animo  :  Amplius  quod  desideres  nihil  erit.  A.  Fe- 
ci, mshercule,  ^  quidem  scepius  :  Sed,  nescio  quomodo,  durn  legOy 
assentior :  Cum.  posui  librum,  &  mecum  ipse  de  immortalitate 
animorum  ccepi  cogitare,  assentio  omnis  ilia  elabitur.f  After  he 
has  instructed  his  hearer,  his  hearer  professes  his  resolution  to  stand 
by  this  opinion  ;  but  gets  a  caution  from  his  instructor,  that  lets  us 
see  how  things  stand.  A.  Nemo  me  de  immortalitate  depellet. 
M.  answers,  Laudo  id  quidem,  elsi  nihil  nimis  oportet  conjidere  ; 
Movemur  enim  scepe  aliquo  acute  concluso :  Labamus  mutamus- 
que  sententiam  clarioribus  ctiam  in  rebus  :  In  his  enim  est  aliquii 
obscuritas.X  And  if  ye  would  know  what  his  reason  was  for  in- 
sisting so  long  on  the  proof  of  this,  he  tells  us  near  the  close, 
That  it  was  to  banish  the  contrary  suspicion,  which  was  trouble- 
some. Much  more  might  be  adduced,  but  what  has  been  said 
sufficiently  demonstrates  how  fluctuating  and  uncertain  the  best  of 
them  were,  in  reference  to  this  important  point. 

If  any  shall  say,  that  though  these  great  men  upon  some  occa- 
sions, express  themselves  with  some  hesitation,  and  did  insinuate 


•  Pag'.  326. — "  A.  I  will  obey  you,  and  explain  these  things  that  you  wish, 
*'  as  I  shall  be  able.  Yet  what  I  am  to  say  will  not  be  certain  and  fixed  like 
"  the  oracles  of  the  Pythian  Apollo,  but  1  will  proceed  as  one  poor  man  of  the 
"  many,  following  probabilities  by  conjecture,  for  I  have  no  where  that  I  can 
"  go  further  than  I  see  probability.  Those  will  say  certain  things  who  say 
*'  that  certainty  can  be  obtained,  and  who  profess  to  be  wise  men." 

f  Pag.  329. — "  A.  But  it  pleases  me,  and  this  first,  that  so  is  the  case,  (to 
"  wit,  that  the  souls  of  men  are  immortal)  and  then  althongh  it  should  not 
"  be  so,  yet  I  wish  to  be  persuaded  of  it.  M.  What  need  have  you  then  of 
"  our  service  ?  Can  we  excel  Plato  in  eloquence  ?  Turn  over  diligently  that 
*'  book  of  his,  which  treats  of  the  soul,  you  will  desire  nothing  more  on  the 
"  subject,  i.  Indeed  I  have  done  so,  and  oftener  than  once,  but  I  know  not 
*'  how  it  is,  I  assent  as  long  as  1  am  reading,  but  when  I  have  laid  do^vn  the 
"  book  and  begin  to  think  with  myself  of  the  immortality  of  sovils,  all  that 
"  assent  vanishes." 

+  "  None  shall  drive  me  from  my  belief  of  immortality.  Jif.  I  commend 
*'  that  indeed,  although  Ave  ought  not  to  be  too  confident  of  any  thing,  for  we  are 
"  often  determined  by  something  that  is  acutely  concluded  ;  yet  afterwards 
"  we  give  way  and  change  o\ir  opinions  even  in  things  that  are  clearer,  fey 
"  there  is  some  obscurity  in  those  things  " 


270  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

some  suspicion  that  the  oppos-ite  pait  of  the  question  might  be 
true,  yet  upon  other  occasions  they  are  positive,  and  that  this  is 
as  good  an  evidence  of  their  being  firmly  persuaded,  as  the  other 
expressions  are  of  their  hesitation.  'I  answer,  the  consequence  is 
naught.  A  seeming  positiveness  upon  some  occasions,  may  be  the 
result  of  a  joint  influence  of  a  strong  desire,  that  the  thing  should 
be  true,  and  some  philosophical  quirk  urged  for  its  support :  For 
as  Cicero  well  observes  in  the  words  last  quoted,  Movenlur  soepe 
aliquo  acute  conclnso  ;  and  this  especially  holds  true,  where  there 
is  a  strong  inclination  to  believe  the  thing,  as  being  of  obvious  ad- 
vantage to  us.  Now  this  may  be,  where  there  is  no  certainty  or 
firm  persuasion.  I  readily  own  that  these  great  men  favored  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  :  But  I  positively  deny,  that  they  receiv- 
ed it  with  that  firmness  of  assent,  that  is  not  only  due,  but  una- 
voidable, to  truths  Avhich  carry  their  own  evidence  along  with 
them.  And  I  moreover  aver,  that  the  Deists,  in  quoting  some  of 
these  assertions  from  them,  wherein  they  seem  positive,  suppres- 
sing other  expressions,  wherein  they  discover  a  hesitation,  do  but 
abuse  the  reader's  credulity  ;  and  give  neither  a  full  nor  fair  ac- 
count of  the  judgment  of  these  men. 


CHAP.     XVI. 

Wlierein  some  general  considerations  are  laid  down  for  proving 
that  mam/  of  the  best  things  which  are  to  he  met  with  in  the  Hea- 
thens, were  not  the  discoveries  of  Nature's  Light,  but  came 
from  Tradition. 

NOTWITHSTANDING  the  gross  ignorance  which  over- 
spread the  Heathen  world,  was  very  great ;  yet  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  there  are  very  many  surprising  hints  of  truth  to  be  found, 
in  many  of  their  writings,  in  reference  even  to  matters  of  religion. 

The  Deists  take  up  whatever  they  meet  with  of  this  sort,  and 
confidently  give  it  out.  That,  all  this  they  discovered  by  the  mere 
light  of  nature. 

There  are  who,  on  the  other  hand,  will  scarce  allow  them  to 
3}ave  made  any  of  those  discoveries  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  but 
ascribe  whatever  hints  of  truth  are  to  be  met  with,  to  tradition. — 
This  is  said  to  be  the  opinion  of  Eusebius  and  Scaliger,  by  Dr. 
Owen.*  And  it  is  of  late  maintained  by  Mr.  Nicolls,  the  inge- 
inous  author  of  the  Conference  with  a  Theist.f     For  which  Mr, 


*  Theol.  Lib.  1.  C.  8.  Paragr.  4. 
-;•  CO"ft"-  Parte,  page 32^  23,  &c. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      171 

Becconsal,  the  author  of  a  late  treatise  concerning  the  Law  of  Na- 
ture, is  much  displeased  with  him,  and  takes  him  to  task.J 

I  design  not  to  make  myself  a  party  in  this  debate,  I  think  tluil: 
there  is  somewhat  of  truth  on  both  sides  :  But  if  either  think  to 
carry  the  matter  to  the  utmost,  I  think  also  there  will  be  mistakes 
on  both  hands.  It  is  too  much  to  say  that  they  discovered  no- 
thing in  reference  to  religion  by  the  mere  light  of  nature  :  Andon 
the  other  hand  it  savours  of  gross  ignorance  to  say  that  all  we 
meet  with  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  sages,  was  discovered  by 
the  light  of  nature.  Nothing  is  more  evident,  than  that  many 
things  have  been  handed  from  nation  to  nation,  and  from  age  to  age 
by  tradition.  This  no  modest  man  will  or  can  deny ;  it  has  been 
so  clearly  made  out  by  many. 

What  I  assert,  and  shall  attempt  to  prove,  is,  "  That  many  of 
'the  most  notable  things  that  we  meet  with  in  the  Heathen  writers, 
in  matters  of  religion,  are  not  to  be  looked  on  as  discoveries  made 
by  the  light  of  nature  ;  but  as  truths,  whereof  they  were  informed 
by  tradition.  And  moreover,  that  when  we  find  them  asserting 
some  of  those  truths,  which  to  us  who  enjoy  the  scriptures,  and 
by  the  scriptures  have  our  reason  improven,  appear  to  have  a 
foundation  in  reason,  we  are  not  therefore  to  conclude,  that  reason 
led  them  to  those  truths  ;  but  rather,  that  in  many  cases  they  had 
even  these  from  tradition. 

In  proving  this  point  I  shall  not  proceed  by  single  instances,  but 
shall  lay  down  these  general  considerations,  which  at  once  clear  the 
truth  of  our  asertion,  and  discover  whence  these  traditions  might 
come,  and  how  easily  they  might  be  conveyed  to  tliem.  Particu- 
lar instances  may  be  had  in  great  abundance  from  those  who  have, 
of  set  purpose  largely  insisted  on  this  subject.  Amongst  others, 
Huetius,  in  his  Demonstratio  EvangeUca,  has  largely  discoursed 
of  particular  instances  of  this  nature.  1  think  the  following  obser- 
vations taken  together  and  duly  considered,  will  put  our  assertion 
beyond  question  w  ith  the  sober  and  judicious. 

1.  It  is  most  certain,  that  the  Jews,  however  in  other  regards 
inconsiderable,  which  makes  it  still  the  more  observable,  had  more 
full,  clear,  and  certain  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  religion,  and  mat- 
ters of  worship,  than  all  the  world  besides.  If  the  Deists  please 
to  controvert  this  proposition  we  shall  debate  it  with  them  when 
they  please.  And  I  dare  be  bold  to  say,  that  I  shall  prove,  that 
there  is  more  true  and  rational  divinity  in  one  of  the  books  of 
Moses,  than  they  shall  be  able  to  find  in  all  the  Heathen  writers, 
when  thej^  put  all  that  has  been  said  by  all  of  them  together. 

2.  Their  neighbors,  and  more  especially  the  Egyptians,  had 
many  fair  occasions  of  obtaining  acquaintance   with  their  opinions 

±  Beccon.  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  C.  4-  page  54,  55,  &c. 

m 


272  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

and  practices  in  matters  of  religion.  Several  persons  at  distant 
times,  went  out  from  the  church  and  settled  in  distant  nations. — 
Ishmael  went  out  from  Abraham's  family,  and  Esau  from  that  of 
Isaac.  Now  it  cannot  be  supposed,  how  wicked  soever  these  per- 
sons were,  but  they  would  carry  out  with  them  some  true  notions^ 
opinions  and  practices,  in  matters  of  religion.  Nor  can  it  rea- 
sonably be  denied,  that  they  founded  their  new  government  on 
some  of  these  notices,  though  variously  blended  and  niixt  with 
corrupt  additions  and  alterations,  both  in  matters  of  opinion  and 
practice.  And  it  is  evident,  that  these  hints,  or  remainders  of 
truth,  in  matters  of  opinion  and  practice,  as  they  were  mixt  with 
these  corruptions,  would  obtain  a  general  and  great  respect,  as  be- 
ing found  useful  for  maintaining  order  in  societies,  as  being  deliver- 
ed to  them  by  the  first  founders  of  their  nations,  as  being  com- 
mended by  their  practice,  and  perhaps  established  by  laws  and 
constitutions.  Whence  it  is  not  possibly  to  be  supposed  that  these 
notices  or  practices  would  in  an  age,  or  a  few  ages,  wear  out. 

Again,  it  is  particularly  observable  in  this  case,  that  the  church 
was,  for  a  long  tract  of  time,  in  a  wandering  and  unsettled  state  ; 
which  obliged  them  to  more  of  intimacy  with  the  nations  that  lay 
near  them,  than  afterwards  was  necessary,  when  they  settled  in  a 
land  by  themselves  apart,  and  were  by  divine  constitutions,  barred 
from  that  familiarity. 

Moreover,  as  to  the  Egyptians,  they  had  much  occasion  of  be- 
ing particularly  acquainted  with  the  Jews'opinions  and  practices  in 
the  matters  of  God.  The  Israelites  dwelt  among  them  (besides 
what  occasioned  converse  they  had  before)  about  217  years  toge- 
ther. The  correspondence  was  again  lenewed  in  Solomon's  time, 
by  his  matching  with  the  king  of  Egypt's  daughter.  Jeremiah, 
and  a  great  company  with  him,  staid  a  considerable  time  in  Egypt, 
and  prophesied  there  to  the  Jews,  who  had  at  that  time  no  separ- 
ate dwellings,  and  prophesied  concerning  Egypt ;  which,  together 
iTith  the  reputation  he  had  got  at  Jerusalem,  by  his  predictions  that 
were  remarkably  verified,  the  notice  taken  of  him  by  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  the  contests  he  had  with  those  of  his  own  nation, 
could  not  but  make  him  much  regarded. 

It  is  further  considerable,  that  there  were  many  things,  which 
may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  excite  an  uncommon  curiosity  in 
the  Egyptians,  to  understand  the  religion  of  the  Jews.  It  is  known 
what  a  place  Joseph  long  had  in  Egypt,  and  how  he  managed  it. 
Afterwards  the  people,  while  under  bondage,  were  scattered  through 
out  the  land,  and  the  piety  of  some  of  them  appearing  in  their  suf- 
ferings, could  not  })ut  be  taken  notice  of,  as  their  scattering  through 
the  land,  gave  occasion  to  the  Egyptians  to  inquire,  as  to  the  prin- 
ciples that  influenced  it.  The  miraculous  appearances  of  God  on 
behalf  o^  that  people  in  Egypt  and  its  neighborhood,  in  the  wilder- 


t^RINCIPLES  OF  THE  iMODERN  DEIST.S.     t7$ 

ness,  would  have  excited  tlie  cmiositj  of  a  people,  nmch  less  in- 
quisitive than  they  were.  The  reputation  of  Solomon,  his  alli- 
ance with  the  crown  of  Egypt,  and  his  traffick  witli  them,  as  tliey 
gave  a  new  occasion,  so  could  not  but  spur  them  on  to  inquire  fur- 
ther into  matters  of  this  sort.  If  to  all  this  you  add  the  general 
character  which  writers  of  all  sorts  o;Ive  to  the  Egyptians,  That  they 
were  a  people  more  than  ordinaril)-  fond  about  matters  of  religion, 
insomuch  that  our  author  Herbert  observes,  that  they  are  said  to 
be- the  first  that  taught  religion  ;*  and  if  further  it  is  considered, 
that  the  Gentiles,  finding  the  unsatisf.ictoriness  of  their  own  opin- 
ions and  practices,  were  very  much  inclined  to  change,  and  ado})t 
the  customs,  practices  and  way  of  every  nation  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion,  to  try  if  they  could  find  any  thing  more  satisfying  than  their 
own  ; — if,  I  say,  all  these  are  laid  together,  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  the  neighboring  nations,  and  particularly  the  Egyptians,  learn- 
ed many  things  from  the  Jews  in  matters  of  religion. 

3.  It  is  observable,  that  all  these  things  fell  out  a  considerable 
time  before  any  ef  those  great  men  appeared  or  flom  ished  in  the 
world,  whose  writings  are  come  to  u:s,  and  contain  those  truths, 
ooncerning  the  rise  whereof  we  now  discourse. 

The  seven  sages,  Thales,  »Solon,  Pittacus,  Bias,  Chilo,  Periaii- 
der,  and  Cleobulus,  who  raised  the  reputation  of  Greece,  did  not 
flourish  till  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  long 
after  the  dispersion  of  the  Ten  Tribes;  some  do  reckon  it  12.'i 
years.f  Socrates  and  Plato  flourished  not  for  near  1.50  years  after 
these  again.  Now  these  are  among  the  first  wlio  made  any  cons;- 
derable  figure  for  learning  of  this  sort  in  the  Heathen  world,  m  hose 
writings  are  come  to  us. 

4.  All  these  great  men  did,  for  their  own  Improvement,  travel 
into  foreign  nations,  and  m:ide  it  their  business  to  learn  their  opin- 
ions and  practices.  Particularly  we  are  told  of  the  most  consi- 
derable of  them  by  Diogenes  Laertius  and  others.  That  they  were 
very  nmch  concerned  to  knoAv  the  opinions  of  the  Egyptian  priests 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  most  of  what  they  knew  in  these  matters 
\tas  taught  them  by  those.  This  will  be  denied  by  none,  that  is 
acquainted  with  the  lives  of  those  persons. 

5.  It  is  further  observable,  that  in  many  instances  there  is  siich 
a  plain  resemblance  in  their  opinions  to  the  scripture  accounts  of 
the  origin  of  the  world,  the  deluge,  the  peopling  of  the  earth,  and 
rnost  other  things,  as  could  not  be  casual  ;  but  shews  plainly  that 
they  were  derived  thence.  This  m  particular  instances  by  many, 
particularly  Huetius  and  others,  to  whom  he  refers,  is  so  fully  de- 
monstrated, that  it  cannot,  without  manifest  impudence,  be  denied. 

•  T)e  UcWp;.  Gent.  pap.  8. 
r  Le  Clerk  Compul.  ilist.  pag.  35,  40. 

35 


'274  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

6.  What  comes  yet  somewhat  nearer  to  our  purpose,  it  is  very 
observable  even  as  to  those  truths,  which  have  some  foundation  in 
reason,  such  as  these,  about  the  immortality  of  the  souls  of  men, 
and  their  state  after  death,  and  the  like,  that  those  gieat  men  of 
old  proposed  them  commonly,  without  offering  any  proof  of  them, 
or  any  reasons  for  them.  Now  it  is  not  credible  that,  if  they  had 
been  led  to  those  notices  by  reason,  they  would  have  offered  those 
important  truths,  without  offering  reasons  of  theniv  This  observa- 
tion Me  find  made,  as  to  its  substance,  though  not  on  such  views,  by 
no  less  a  person  than  Cicero,  who  knew  as  well  how  matters  then 
stood,  to  speak  modestly,  as  any  now  can  know.  Speaking  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  ancient  philosophers'  sentiments 
about  it,  he  says,  "  Sed  redeo  ad  antiquos.  Rationem  illi  senten- 
iice  Sim  non  fere  reddehant  nisi  siquid  erat  mmieris  aut  description- 
ibus  explicandnm — Plalonem  feriint  primum  de  animorum  aterni- 
tate  non  solum  sensisse  idem,  quod  Pythagoras,  sed  rationem  etiam 
altulisseJ'^ 

7.  Nor  is  it  less  considerable  to  prove,  that  the  notions,  which 
prevailed  about  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  a  future  state^ 
(and  the  like  may  be  said  of  many  others)  were  not  learned  from 
reason,  but  from  tradition;  and  that  the  impression  and  persuasion 
of  these  truths  were  more  generally  entertained,  and  more  strongly 
riveted  among  the  vulgar  than  among  the  philosophers.  Whole 
shoals  of  them,  or  Catervce,  as  Cicero  above  quoted  speaks,  denied 
and  derided  all  these  things,  Avhich  the  vulgar  firmly  believed. — 
This  observation  I  find  made  by  the  learned  Dr.  Owen,  "  Cum 
mundi  exitu  judicium,  post  hanc  viiam  exercendum,  famam  ca- 
IhoJicom  obiimdl.  Eam  etiam  pej'siiasionem  comitata  est  immar- 
ialitntis  animar'nm  prcesvinptio,  quce  qvamvis  rationi  etiam  inni' 
iatur,famen  cum  mnxime  semper  apud  vnlgus,  potius  quam  'o-epas 
obtinuif,  non  nisi  traditioni  adscribenda  est"} 

8.  When  tliese  great  men  of  old  do  give  reasons  of  their  opin- 
ions, they  are  such,  as  any  one  may  see,  never  led  them  to  these 
opinions  :  but  having,  by  tradition  received  them,  they  were  asham- 
ed to  hold  them,  without  being  capable  to  give  any  reason  for  what 
they  held,  and  therefoie,  they  set  their  wits  on  the  rack  to  find 
out  what  to  say  for  them.      And  it  was  but  seldom  they  hit  on  the 


*  "  But  I  return  to  the  ancients.  They  commonly  did  not  g-ive  a  reason 
for  their  opinion,  unless  when  any  thing  was  to  be  explained  by  numbers  or 
figaires. — IMiey  say  that  Plato  was  the  first  who  not  only  was  of  the  same  opin- 
ion with  Pythagoras  concei-ning  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  who  like- 
Mise  adduced  a  reason  for  it." 

f  *'  That  with  the  end  of  the  world  there  was  to  be  a  judgment  after  this 
life,  hadas^eneral  fame,  and  a  presum])tion  of  the  immortality  of  souls  ac- 
csmpanied  this  persuasion,  which  although  it  is  supported  by  reason,  yet  as  it 
has  always  prevailed  most  among  the  vulgar,  rather  than  amop.g  philosophers, 
can  onl\-  be  ascribed  to  tradition." 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      275 

true  ones.  For  the  most  part  their  reasonings  are  plainly  childish,  tri- 
fling and  sophistical.  It  were  easy  to  demonstrate  this.  As  to 
(he  arguments  of  Socrates  and  Plato  for  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  they  are  plain  sophisms  :  and  upon  what  design  they  were  ur- 
ged, we  have  heard  before,  viz.  to  confirm  themselves  in  an  opin- 
ion, the  belief  whereof  was  accompanied  with  some  ailvantage. — 
A  learned  person  says  justly,  "  That  Plato  endeavoi-s  to  prove  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  by  such  reasons,  as,  if  they  conclude  any 
thing,  would  conclude  it  to  be  a  God."*  And  the  same  may  be 
said  of  Cicero  and  others. 

9.  It  is  moreover  remarkable,  to  this  pui^pose,  that  not  only  are 
there  many  things  to  be  met  with  in  the  writings  and  practices  of 
the  ancient  writers  amongst  the  Heathens,  whereof  no  colourable 
reason  can  be  given,  nor  any  account  made,  otherwise  than  by  as- 
cribing them  to  ancient  and  corrupted  traditions  ;  but  further,  that 
they  knew  not  how  to  manage  or  improve  those  hints,  which  were 
this  way  handed  to  them.  Most  of  them  quite  spoil  these  things  in 
the  telling.  A  few  of  the  more  wise,  conscious  of  their  own  ig- 
norance, yet  wanting  humility  and  ingenuity  enough  to  acknowledge 
it,  wrap  themselves  in  clouds,  and  express  themselves  darkly,  to 
conceal  their  own  ignorance  from  the  vulgar ;  and  one  that  under- 
stands, would  not  know  whether  to  laugh  or  be  angry,  to  see  their 
fond  admirers,  in  later  ages,  sweating  to  fetch  sublime  meanings 
from  words  which  the  writers  themselves  really  understood  not. 

10.  In  the  last  place,  we  find  the  ancients  themselves,  on  some 
occasions,  owning,  that  they  owed  the  first  discoveries  of  these 
things  to  tradition.  Dacier  in  her  life  of  Plato,  tells  us,  "  That 
he  first  instructs  them  in  religion,  about  which  he  establishes  no- 
thing, without  having  consulted  God  ;  that  is,  nothing  but  what  is 
conformable  to  true  tradition  and  ancient  orades.^^f  To  evince 
the  truth  of  this,  Plato's  own  words  are  subjoined,  "  God,  (saith 
Plato)  as  we  are  taught  by  ancient  tradition,  having  in  himself  the 
beginning,  the  middle  and  end  of  all  things,  always  goes  on  in  his 
way,  according  to  his  nature,  without  ever  stepping  aside  ;  he  is 
followed  hy  justice^  which  never  fails  to  punish  the  transgressions 
committed  against  his  law."J  And  a  little  after,  speaking  about 
the  punishments  of  the  wicked,  he  proceeds  thus,  "  They  are 
not  limited  to  the  miseries  of  this  life,  nor  to  death  itself,  from 
which  even  good  men  are  not  exempt ;  for  these  are  penalties  too 
light  and  short,  but  they  are  horrible  torments."  But  yet  more 
remarkable  to  this  purpose  are  his  words  in  his  epistles,  "  Anti- 
qiiis  vera  sacrisq  ;  sermonibtis  fides  semper  habenda,  qui  declarant 
uninium  nobis  esse  immortaleniy  ct  jiidices  habere,  quorum  decre- 

*  Dr.  Howe's  living'  temple.  Part  1.  page  122. 
t  Life  of  Plato,  page  86. 
.  Plato  de  Ligibusj  Lib.  4. 


ii16  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

iiSipro  merito  prcvmia  d  snpplicia  maxima  attribuunlur,  tU  prl" 
mum  quis  e  corporc  dccesserit."^ 

hay  these  things  tor^ethei.,  and  as  they  are  hi  themselves,  evi^ 
dent  enoiigli  :  so  I  think  they  amount  to  a  full  demonstration  of 
the  assertion,  we  hare  abo^e  laid  down,  for  the  proof  whereof  we 
adduced  them  ;  and  they  do  abundantly  shew,  how  inconsiderately 
every  thing  met  with  in  ancient  writers  is  put  upon  the  score  of" 
nature's  light. 


CHAP.     XVH. 

Wherein  rve  consider  ivhai  Herbert's  opinion  was  as  to  the  sufficienci/ 
of  his  Articles,  and  ire  offer  some  reflections,  shewing  how  fool- 
ishyubsiird  and  ridiculous  the  Deist's  pretences  to  their  sufficiencT/ 
are. 

WE  have  now  demonstrated  that  these  five  articles  did  not 
universall}'  obtain  in  the  world,  and  that  consequently  the  Heathen 
■world  had  not  the  means  necessary  to  salvation. 

But  should  we  grant  what  has  been  above  proved  to  be  false,  viz. 
That  these  articles  did  universally  obtain  ;  yet  all  is  not  done,  nor 
is  the  difficulty  so  got  over ;  for  we  are  not  agreed,  that  these, 
though  acknowledged,  are  alom  sufficient. 

We  know  our  author  would  have  us  to  believe,  that  they  are 
sufficient.  He  tells  us  to  this  purpose,  that  when  he  had  found 
them  out,  be  saw  that  there  was  nothing  wanting  to  make  a  com- 
plete religion.  Quam.  hasce  igiiur  eximiqs  vcritaies  seorsim  pa- 
rassem,  disquisivi  porro,  quid  kisce  adjccerinf,  vel  quidem  adjicere 
possint  sacerdotes,  unde  certior  Jidei  circa  salutem  (Riernam  da^ 
retur  norma^  aut  vita  integritas  sanctitasq  ;  magis  promoveretur, 
aid  communis  ubique  stabilirelur  concordia.  Videham  satis  alia 
atque  alia  hie  addiposse^  quin  et  addita  fuisse  ;  sed  quit  vcritates 
hasce  obstruerenf,  enervarenfque  potius,  quam  vim  robvrque  illis 
CQnciliarent.-f  And  indeed  our  author  is;  so  bold  a«:  to  challenge 
all  the  world  to  shew  what  can  be  added  to  these  five  articles.   Ui 


*  Plato,  Epist.  7- — "  But.  credit  o'jght  al-vays  lobe  given  to  anrient  and 
"sacred  speeches,  M'liich  declare  that  our  souls  are  immortal,  and  that  these 
are  judges  by  whose  sentences  great  rewards  and  punishments  are  to  be  dis- 
tributed according  to  merit,  as  soon  as  we  shall  have  icf  c  the  bod_\ ."' 

Y  "When  therefore  1  had  got  these  excellent  truth-  by  themselves,  I  next 
*'  inquired  what  priests  had  added,  or  could  add  to  th.-r.o",  whereby  they  niiglit 
*'  be  a  surer  guide  of  our  Jaith  concerning  eternal  salvation,  or  integrity  and 
*'  sanctity  of  life  more  promoted,  or  common  concord  establislicd  every 
■"  where.     I  saw  vv'ell  enough  tliat  dinerent  things  might  be  added,  nay  had 

been  added  to  them,  but  such  as  rather  obstructed  and  c'-terva ted  these 
':'  truths,  than  gave  tbcra  a-iy  fo-pe  o.r  strengtli." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        277 

tidcrent  interca  antvitites,  prctsulcsq  ;  per  totiim  orhem  diffusi^ 
quid  hisce  quinq ;  ArticuUs,  addere  potucrint :  Unde  vera  ilia 
virtus,  qua  homines  Deo  similes,  consortioque  ejus  dignos  efficit  ; 
vet  pietas,  puritds  sanrtitasq :  vit(B  magis  promoveri  possint.^ 
And  growing  still  bolder  by  this  imaginary  success,  he  proccedr, 
to  inveigh,  though  more  covertly,  against  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
as  de^ructive  to  piefi/.  Of  which  he  gives  a  most  disingenuous 
account,  as  commonly  he  does  of  all  the  articles  of  revealed  re- 
ligion, which  he  has  occasion  to  mention. 

But  however  confident  our  author  is,  of  the  sufficiency  of  his 
five  articles  in^this  place  ;  yet  elsewhere  he  shews  he  had  not 
over  much  certainty  in  his  own  mind,  about  this  matter  :  For 
some  pages  after,  he  says,  Et  quidem  quinque  hosce  Articulos 
bonosr,  catholicosque  esse  wiusquisq;  ProcAil  dubio  fatebetur  ;  ad 
salutem  tamen  Kternam  romparandam  non  sufficcre  perhibebtmt 
nonnuUi ;  caterum  qui  ita  locutus  fuerit,  ne  ille  quidem  audax  ; 
nedum  scBvum  temerariumq;  nffatem  (mea  senteniia)  proiulerit  ; 
quum  nulli  satis  explorala  sint  Judicia  Divina  ;  quam  eiiam  oh 
causam,  neque  ea  sujfficere  protenus  dixerim :  attamen  magis  pro- 
babilis  mihi  videtur  eornm  opinio,  qui  ceque  pie  ac  leniter  de  Del 
Jiidiciis  statiiU7it,  dum  homo,  quod  in  se  est,  prastat ;  neque  eniut 
in  cujusve  potestate  est,  ut  fides  sive  traditiones  quantumvis  laxcB 
(prcRsertim  nbi  aliqua  ex  parte  contravertuntiir)  ad  se  satis  per- 
tingant,  neque  tandem  recta  communiq  ;  ratione  quinq  ;  Articulis 
nostris  addi  potest  dogma,  unde  magis  pii,  sincerique  evadunt  /<o- 
mijies ;  aut  pax^  concordiaq  ;  publico,  magis  promovealurr'-- 
Ilere  our  author  is  more  modest. 

Thus  we  have  seen  what  his  opinion  is  ;  it  now  remains  thai 
we  offer  some  reflections  on  it.  Many  offer  themselves  :  I  shall 
only  touch  at  a  few. 


}  *  **  — That  the  priests  and  bishopr,  scattered  over  tlie  whole  v/ovld,  might 
"  see  in  the  mean  time,  what  they  could  add  to  these  five  articls  ;  or  by  wJiat 
"  means  that  true  virtue,  which  venders  men  like  to  God,  and  worthy  of  liis 
"  fellowship,  or  by  which  piety,  purity  and  sanctity  of  life,  can  be  more  pio- 
"  moted." 

f  "  And  indeed  every  one  will  doubtless  confess,  that  these  five  articles 
"  are  g'ood  and  catholic  ;  yet  some  will  thinic  they  are  not  sufficient  for  at- 
"  taining'  eternal  life.  But  whoever  would  say  so,  would  be  guilty  of  uller- 
"  ing  not  only  a  bold,  not  to  say  a  cruel  and  arbitr;u'y  sentence,  in  my  opinion, 
"  as  the  Divine  judgments  are  not  sufficiently  known  to  any  one,  for  which 
"  reason  likewise,  neither  would  I  positively  affirm  that  they  were  suffi- 
"  cient.  Yet  the  opinion  of  those  seems  to  be  the  more  probable,  who  judge 
"  equitably,  piously  and  mildly  of  the  Divine  judgements,  while  a  man  does 
"  what  depends  on  him  ;  for  it  is  not  in  tlie  power  of  every  one,  that  creeds 
*'  or  Traditions,  however  lax,  (especially  when  they  are  any  where  contro- 
•'  verted)  should  extend  to  him  ;  nor  in  fine,  can  any  doctrine  ,be  added  to 
"  our  five  articles  by  right  and  common  reason,  whereby  men  may  become 
more  pious  and  sincere,  or  peace  and  public  concord  may  be  more  nrom' 
"  ted." 


278  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

1,  Though  the  Deists  are  as  desirous  as  any,  to  confine  religion 
to  a  narrow  compass,  and  perhaps  it  is  as  much  their  interest,  as  it 
is  of  any  sort  of  men,  that  it  should  consist  of  few  articles  ;  yet, 
for  shame,  they  cannot  make  it  contain  less,  than  those  five  ar- 
ticles. They  own,  and  must  own  all  those  necessary  to  salvation, 
both  in  belief  and  practice.  It  is  not  possible,  they  themselves 
being  judges,  to  reach  the  ends  of  religion,  if  any  of  them  aie  cut 
off.  Since  then  we  have  above  proved  that  these  did  not  univer- 
sally obtain,  it  is  plain,  that  all  mankind  had  not  sufficient  know- 
ledge of  religion.     Thus  it  is  in  fact. 

But  now  where  shall  the  blame  of  this  be  laid  ?  0»i  themselves  ? 
On  the  priests  ?  Or  on  God  ?  This  last  cannot  be  said. 

Well  then  must  these  villains  of  priests,  with  whom  Cur  author 
and  all  the  succeeding  Deists  are  so  angry,  bear  the  blame  of 'it,  in 
that  they  did  not  better  teach  and  instruct  the  people,  in  the 
j^rounds  of  sincere  religion  ?  But  though  our  author,  and  all  the 
Deists,  would  fain  lodge  the  blame  here  ;  yet  I  am  scarce  satisfied 
of  the  justice  of  the  charge ;  (though  I  am  willing  to  own,  that 
they  were  not  for  the  most  part  arch-villains)  for  how  shall  it  be 
made  appear  that  they  themselves  knew  the  grounds  of  sincere  re- 
ligion ?  I  know  our  author  blames  them  for  not  imparting  the 
knowledge  of  sincere  religion  to  the  people  ;  and  that  he  may  be 
sure  to  shut  the  door  upon  them  that  they  may  not  escape,  he 
adds  by  way  of  parenthesis,  licet  illis  satis  cognitam.*  But  how 
proves  he  this,  that  they  knew  that  chaste  and  sincere  religion 
v/ell  enough  ?  Might  they  not  be  supposed  ignorant  of  it,  as  well 
as  most  of  the  philosophers,  the  greatest  moralists  not  excepted  ? 
Again,  I  do  not  well  see  what  right  they  had  to  teach,  or  how 
they  were  obliged.  Did  the  law  of  nature  authorise  them  to  be 
public  teachers  ?  I  believe  the  Deists  think  not.  Was  not  every 
man  able  to  shift  for  himself,  and  find  the  way  to  blessedness  ?  If 
he  was,  what  need  was  there  to  trust  these  villainous  priests  ? 
Who  was  obliged  to  hsten  to  them  ?  If  every  man  was  not  able, 
without  the  help  of  some  instructor,  then  if  that  instructor  failed 
in  his  duty,  as  it  is  certain  they  did  almost  perpetually,  (nay  our 
author  will  not  allow,  nor  see  I  indeed  any  need  of  that  almost  J 
what  becomes  of  the  poor  vulgar,  who,  without  instruction  cannot 
reach  competent  knowledge  ?  He  is  not  able  to  reach  it,  his  in- 
structors fail  of  their  duty  ;  and  for  any  thing  I  see,  the  poor  man 
wants,  and  must  always  want  a  sufficient  religion,  and  that  with- 
out any  fault  of  his. 

Well,  then,  unavoidably,  either  every  man  is  able  to  do  and 
know  for  himself,  in  matters  of  religion  ;  or  a  great  many,  even 
most  of  the  poor  vulgar,  are  lost  for  good  and  all ;  and  there  is  no 

■  *  Pag-.  180  sub  f.nein "  Although  it  wag  sufRcier.tly  known  to  them." 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      27^ 

help  for  it,  and  that  without  their  fault.  If  the  last  be  said,  our  au- 
thor has  lost  his  point  quite  ;  and  if  this  be  a  fault,  he  will  by  it 
at  the  door  of  Providence,  that  has  not  sufficiently  provided  all 
men,  in  the  means  necessary  for  their  future  happiness  :  If  the  first 
be  said,  then  the  blame  must  lie  at  every  man's  own  door.  But  me- 
thinks  our  author  is  not  willing  of  this  ;  for  he  would  always  ex- 
cuse the  vulgar,  and  suppose  them  so  rude  and  ignorant,  that  they 
had  not  either  will,  courage,  nor  ability  to  step  otherwise  than  they 
were  led.  But  after  all,  the  fault  must  be  lodged  at  their  doors,  or 
the  Deist's  whole  cause  is  lost.  I  confess,  any  one  that  was  under 
such  impressions  of  their  stupid  ignorance,  as  our  author  seems  to 
have  been,  will  even  think  it  hard  enough  to  say  that  every  one  of 
Ihem  had  this  ability,  to  find  out  a  sufficient  religion ;  and  I  believe, 
not  without  ground  ;  though  I  still  -^hink,  that  they  might  have 
known,  and  done  more  than  they  did  ;  but  this  will  do  the  Deist's 
cause  no  service. 

2.  But  further,  the  Deists  must  own  that  natural  religion,  accor- 
ding to  this  mould  of  it  at  least,  did  never  obtain  in  purity,  without 
any  additions,  in  any  place  of  the  world.  Our  author  confesses, 
that  on  this  foundation,  there  was  every  where  a  strange  super- 
structure raised.  After  he  has  spoken  of  those  articles,  he  subjoins, 
"  Hfec  igitur  sincerioris  Gentilium  rellgionis  partes  fue»e  ;  reliquje 
"  vel  commentltijB  fabellae  vel  archetype  nugce,  vel  scltamenta  quEe- 
*'  dem  prohiberi  possunt :  inter  quae  (dainno  mortalium)  nonnulla 
"  insana,  nonnulla  etiam  impia  visebantur."*  Now,  this  being  the 
case,  I  would  gladly  know,  if  our  author's  five  articles  are  looked 
upoij  as  of  such  virtue,  that  they  could  hallow  all  these  additions 
made  to  them,  or  at  least,  so  far  furnish  an  antidote  for  their  poison, 
that  person5i,who  embraced  this  complex  frame  of  religion,  consisting 
of  these  five  articles,  and  such  additions  as  in  every  nation  were 
made  to  them,  might  yet  reach  happiness,  or  not. 

It  is  pretended  that  these  five  articles  of  natural  religion,  though 
contaminated  with  these  additions,  (as  our  author  speaks,  when  he 
enters  upon  his  discourse,  about  those  orthodox  points  of  religion, 
"  Ritibus,  cseremonlaeq  ;  contaminabantur,  conspurcabanturq,")f 
are  sufficient  to  lead  to  happiness,  then  this  Is  plainly  to  say,  that 
the  religion  of  every  country  was  good  and  sufficient,  and  that  eve- 
ry one  might  be  saved  by  that  religion  he  was  bred  in. J  If  the 
defence  of  this  is  undertaken,  It  will  be  found  a  pretty  hard  pro- 
vince, and  one  will  not  easily  be  able  to  defend,  That  the  complex 

*  212. — "  These  then  were  the  parts  of  the  more  pure  religion  of  the  Ilea- 
"  thens,  the  others  were  devised  fables,  or  ancient  trifles,  or  Talse  ornaments, 
"  among'  which,  to  the  loss  of  man,  some  mad  and  even  impious  lhing|'s  w^re 
"  likewise  to  be  seen." 

t  Paf?.  184.  Cap.  4.  at  the  close. 

>  Herbert  de  Veritate,  pag.  272. 


286  AN  INaLIRY  INTO  THE 

reH<i;ion  of  every  countiy  was  sufficient,  or  that  the  virtue  of  those 
articles  was  such,  as  to  preserve  from  the  hurt  of  the  additions. 
What  if,  in  the  complex  frame  of  most  feligions  of  the  world,  some 
of  our  author's  fundamental  articles  are  juslled  out  of  their  own 
place  ?  Perhaps,  while  each  religion  sets  up  for  so  many  inferior 
gods,  they  rob  the  one  supreme  God  of  much  of  his  glory,  to  a- 
dorn  these  imaginary  gods  with.  It  may  be,  more  stress  is  laid  on 
rites  than  on  virtue,  which  our  author  makes  the  principal  part  of 
worship.  Perhaps  more  stress  is  laid  on  their  rites  for  expiation^ 
than  on  repentance.  What  if  the  additions  made  are  such,  as  are 
utterly  inconsistent  with  a  due  regard  to  these  articles,  or  a  just  im- 
provement of  them  ?  What  if  there  are  other  things  yoked  in  with 
Ihem  in  most  religions,  that  are  as  derogatory  to  the  honor  of  God, 
as  these  can  be  supposed  conducive  for  its  advancement?  How  can 
such  a  horrid  medley  of  things,  sound  and  unsound,  orthodox  foun- 
dations and  impious  superstructures,  be  acceptable  to  God,  or  use- 
ful to  man  ?  One  half,  to  wit,  our  author's  five  cutholic  articles,  is 
designed  to  lead  men  to  bliss,  pretend  the  Deists  :  And  the  other, 
to  wit,  the  rites  and  ceremonies,  are  designed  to  the  M'orst  of  pur- 
poses, by  those  villains  of  priests,  who  aim  at  cheating  the  world. 
Now,  how  shall  such  cross  designs  agree  or  consist  ?  Or,  how  can 
means  adapted  to  so  very  different,  nay,  quite  opposite  ends,  be 
united  and  hang  together  ?  Or,  if  they  are  united,  how  can  that  re- 
ligion, which  consists  of  such  jarring  and  incoherent  materials,  turn 
lo  any  account  ?  But  this  opinion  is  so  ridiculous,  that  I  need  not 
insist  in  disproving  of  it.  No  man  of  sobriety  can  ever  pretend 
that  these  articles  can  be  of  any  use,  if  each  of  them  is  not  k^ptin 
its  own  place,  and  if  care  is  not  taken  to  guard  against  all  additions, 
which  are  inconsistent  with  a  due  respect  to  those  articles.  Some 
little  addititions,  perhaps  one  might  suppose  would  do  no  great 
hurt ;  but  if  there  are  any,  that  entrench  on  the  foundations,  and 
put  them  out  of  their  place,  the  whole  fabiic  falls,  and  all  is  ruined. 
Now  I  think  it  were  no  hard  work  to  prove,  that  the  additions  were 
such,  in  every  nation,  as  rendered  the  whole  utterly  useless,  and  in- 
sufficient to  any  of  the  most  considerable  ends  of  religion,  either 
with  respect  to  God  or  man. 

But  if  it  is  pretended,  that  while  those  five  articles  are  asserted 
sufficient,  it  is  only  meant,  that  if  persons  would  abandon  all  thoso 
extravagant,  destructive  and  filthy  additions,  which  every  wliere 
are  made  to  them,  and  only  regard  them,  then  in  following  these 
they  might  attain  to  life  and  eternal  happiness  :  If,  I  say,  this  is 
alledged,  then  I  would  ask,  how  shall  we  distinguish  betwixt  those 
articles  and  others  that  are  interwoven  with  them,  in  each  country? 
&y  what  marks  shall  the  necessaries  be  known  from  the  nonneces- 
raries?  The  fundamentals  from  the  accessaries  ?  Is  every  man  able, 
with  our  anthnr.  to  dissert  and  inspect  the  several  religions  of  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEIStS.      281 

rountries  where  they  live,  and  separate  the  necessaries  from  theses 
that  are  not  so  ?  Our  author  found  this  a  pretty  hard  task  :  What 
shall  poor  mean  people  then  think  of  it  ?  Our  author  has  shown 
what  fair  pleas  might  be  made  for  many  of  the  most  pernicious 
parts  of  the  religions  of  the  nations.  Would  a  poor  countryman 
be  able  to  rid  his  feet  of  such  fetters  ?  It  is  utterly  impossible  that 
the  one  half  of  mankind  could  distinguish  betwixt  what  was  to  be 
rejected,  and  what  was  to  be  retained.  In  a  word,  it  is  evident, 
that  all  the  world  over,  things  pernicious  and  destructive  were  so 
twisted  in  with  thmgs  of  another  sort,  and  such  fair  pleas  made  for 
them,  that  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  the  poor  ignorant  vulgar  to 
divide  the  one  from  the- other.  Since  then  these  five  articles  sig- 
nify nothing,  unless  they  were  severed  from  these  other  things, 
which  were  every  where  interwoven  with  them,  and  most  part  of  man- 
kind were  utterly  unable  to  do  this,  which  I  doubt  no  man  ever  did 
before  our  author,  it  seems  evident,  that  of  whatever  use  they  may 
be  to  our  author,  who  was  so  sharp  sighted  as  to  spy  them  out  and 
distinguish  them  from  the  other  things  with  which  they  were  mixt ; 
yet  they  can  be  of  no  use  to  the  far  greater  part  of  mankind,  and 
consequently  the  far  greater  part  of  the  human  race,  still  must  be 
owned  destitute  of  the  means  that  may  be  justly  termed  sufficient 
to  lead  them  to  future  happiness.  These  five  articles,  as  in  fact 
they  have  always  been  interwoven  with  other  things,  were  not  suf- 
ficient to  save  any  ;  and  whatever  their  force  might  be,  if  they 
had  been  severed  from  other  things,  yet  they  not  being  so,  before 
our  author  did  it,  and  most  part  of  men  being  utterly  incapable 
of  making  this  distinction,  they  must  be  looked  on  as  insufficient 
to  many,  at  least  of  mankind,  who  therefore  certainly  were  desti- 
tute of  means  needful  for  future  happiness,  and  so  left  to  perish.  I 
know  our  author  pretends  that  some  were  able  to  distinguish,  and 
did  make  a  difference  betwixt  these  articles  and  the  additions  :  Vc- 
mm  qu'mq ;  arllculos  supra  didos  (utiqne  in  corde  describimturj 
sine  uUa  hasitationc  accipiebant  olim  Gentiles  procul  dubio  ;  d& 
reliquis puto,  amhigebant,tum  ii  prasertim,  quiinter  illos  saltetJt 
sapientinres  cestiniabantur.'^  How  ill-grounded  our  author's  con- 
fidence as  to  the  universal  acceptance  of  his  five  articles  is,  we  have 
seen  above.  What  he  subjoins  about  the  Gentiles  distinguishing 
the  additions  that  were  made  to  ihem,  from  them,  comes  not  up  to 
the  point  :  For  the  question  is  not,  Whether  some  could  thus  dis- 
tinguish the  one  from  the  other  ?  But,  Whether  all  did,  or  could? 
And  when  he  pretends  that  some  of  the  more  discerning  did  so, 
what  proof  does  lie  advance  ?  Nothing  but  his  bold  jnito.  This  reflec- 

*  Page  211. — "  But  doubtless  the  Heathens  formerly  received,  without  any 
"  hesitation,  those  live  :ti-ticles  above  mentioned  (as  beinf^  written  in  their 
"  hearts)  of  the  rest  I  think  that  they  doubttdj  aud  especially  thos^e  aiponjf 
**  them  who  wtre  reckoned  wiser  than  othcr^." 

30 


282  AN  INCIUIRY  INTO  THE 

tlon  might  be  further  urged,  but  I  shall  pass  it,  and  proceed  to  ano- 
ther. 

3.  How  shall  one  be  satisfied  that  these  five  articles  are  all  that 
were  necessary ;  or  that  they  are  sufficient  ?  Are  the  Deists  all 
agreed  about  this  ?  No,  we  have  heard  one  above  making  seven  ne- 
cessary. Nay,  our  author  is  not  too  confident,  as  we  have  heard 
above,  when  he  says,  Quam  nulli  satis  explorata  sint  judicia  divi- 
iia ;  quam  etiam  ob  causam,  neque  eos  sitfficere  protenus  dixerim.^ 
We  see  our  author  is  not  very  sure  about  the  sufficiency  of  those 
articles.  But  he  seems  pretty  positive  that  there  is  no  other  arti- 
cle discoverable  by  the  common  reason  of  mankind,  that  can  be  of 
any  great  use,  or  that  is  necessary  to  answer  the  great  ends  of  re- 
ligion, the  public  peace  and  bettering  of  mankind.  But  we  see  the 
Deists  are  not  all  agreed  here  ;  some  think  more  needful.  But  I 
have  two  or  three  words  to  say  to  all  this — May  no  article  be  al- 
lowed necessary  that  is  controverted  ?  So  our  author  insinuates. 
A.nd  Blount  in  his  Religio  Laici,  is  positive  oftener  than  once.f 
Then  I  would  know  of  the  Deists,  Have  never  these  articles,  any 
or  all  of  them,  been  controverted  ?  Have  not  we  already  proven, 
that  {he  first  article  has  been  controverted,  about  the  being  of  one 
supreme  God  ?  Is  not  our  author's  third  article,  viz.  "  That  virtue 
(as  it  is  discoverable  by  the  light  of  nature)  is  the  principal  part  of 
the  worship  of  God,"  disputed  by  Christians  ?  Do  not  the  follow- 
ers of  Spinoza  deny  repentance  to  be  a  duty,  and  that  in  compli- 
ance with  their  master,  who  pretends  to  demontrate  in  his  Ethicks, 
"  That  he  who  repents  is  twice  miserable  ?" J  Has  not  the  ^/?A 
been  controverted  by  many  of  old  ?  Let  any  who  denies  this  read 
Cicero,  Lib.  1 .  Tusc.  Quest,  or  Plato's  Phedon,  and  they  will  learn, 
that  it  has  been  controverted  by  more  of  the  wise  men  than  em- 
braced it.  And  do  not  very  many  of  our  modern  Deists  call  it  in 
question  ?  Again,  have  there  not  been  some  other  articles  as  uni- 
A^ersally  agreed  upon,  as  little  controverted,  and  perhaps  even  less 
than  some  of  these  ?  To  give  but  one  instance.  Has  not  the  article 
about  the  worship  of  God,  that  he  was  to  be  worshipped  with  some 
solemn  external  worship,  whom  we  owned  as  God,  been  as  much 
agreed  to  as  any  of  the  rest  ?  Doth  it  not  arise  from  the  common 
reason  of  mankind  ?  But  I  shall  wave  this. 

4.  There  is  another  thing  that  I  would  know  of  the  Deists,  con- 
cerning their  five  articles.     Do  they  think  them,  as  they  are  pro- 


*  Vid.  pag.  47. — "  As  the  divine  judgments  are  not  sufficiently  known  to  any 
"  one,  for  which  reason  likewise,  neither  would  I  positively  affirm  that  they 
"  were  sufficient." 

f  Compare  pag.  3  and  4. 

i  Spin.  Ethicks,  pag.  4.  Prop.  54.  Pcentenitia  virtus  non  est,  sive  ex  rationc 
non  oritur,  quern  facti  pcenitet,  bis  miser,  sen  impotens  est. — "  Penitence  is  not  a 
"  virtue,  nor  arises  from  reason,  for  he  who  repents  of  what  he  has  done,  is 
"  twice  miserable,  or  weak." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      283 

posed,  sufficient  ?  Or  must  they  not  be  well  explained  ?  If  as  they 
are  proposed,  I  would  gladly  see  the  man  that  can  have  the  face  to 
maintain,  what  is  not  only  untrue,  but  ridiculous.  Will,  for  instance, 
the  owning  virtue  to  be  the  principal  part  of  the  worship  of  God, 
signify  any  thing  to  the  world,  while  they  know  not,  and  are  not 
agreed  what  is  virtue  and  what  is  vice  ?  Is  not  this  to  mock  the 
world,  to  propose  general  articles,  and  tell  the  world  is  agreed  about 
them,  while  yet  one  half  is  not  agreed  what  is  the  signification  of 
these  general  words  ?  Is  not  this  a  plain  cheat  ?  It  is  true,  Blount, 
who  has  copied  all  from  our  author,  as  the  present  Deists  do  from 
him,  tells  us  that  these  articles  must  be  well  explained.  "  Neither 
"  can  I,  (says  he)  imagine  so  much  as  one  article  more  in  common 
*'  reason,  that  could  make  man  better,  or  more  pious,  when  the 
"  foresaid  were  rightly  explicated  and  observed."*  But  now  are 
not  these  articles  sufficient  unless  rightly  explicated  ?  No,  he  dares 
not  say  it.  Well,  was  the  world  agreed  about  this  right  explication 
of  them  ?  Who  ever  did  rightly  explain  them  ?  Point  us  to  the  per- 
son who  did  it,  either  for  himself  or  others  ?  Was  every  body  able 
to  do  it  for  himself?  If  not,  then  I  fear  the  world  wanted  still  a 
sufficient  religion,  after  all  the  pains  taken  to  provide  them  in  one* 
And  further,  what  is  the  meaning  of  author's  wording  the  third  ar- 
ticle, "  That  virtue' is  the  principal  part  of  the  worship  of  God  ?" 
This  may  be  true,  though  it  be  not  the  onli/  part.  Well,  though 
it  is  the  principal  part,  may  there  not  be  another  part  necessary  ? 
Though  perhaps  the  head  of  a  man  is  the  principal  part,  yet  there 
are  some  other  parts  necessary.  Was  not  the  world  as  much  agreed 
that  there  should  be  another  part,  as  that  this  mas  a  part  of  the 
worship  of  God  ?  I  believe  it  is  easy  to  prove  the  world  was  more 
agreed  as  to  the  Jiist  than  the  last.  Why  then  must  this  be  over- 
looked ?  I  believe  I  could  guess  pretty  nearly — he  was  afraid  to  do 
it,  because  he  saw  that  he  would  presently  be  confounded  with  the 
differences  about  the  way  of  worship,  and  that  he  would  never  be 
able  to  maintain  that  reason  was  sufficient  to  direct  us  to  the  solemn 
worship  of  God  ;  and  that,  if  he  should  assert  it,  he  would  have 
''  not  only  Christians  to  dispute  the  point  with  him,  bi|t  Heathens. 
But  lest  it  should  be  thought  that  what  is  alleged  of  the  Heathens* 
looking  on  reason  as  incompetent  for  this,  is  groundless,  I  shall  only 
copy  you  a  little  of  Sociates'  and  Alcibiades'  discourse  about  wor- 
ship, out  of  Plato,  or  rather  remind  the  reader  of  what  we  quoted 
from  him  before.  Socrates  meets  Alcibiades  going  to  the  temple 
to  pray,  and  dissuades  him  from  it,  because  he  knew  not  how  to  do 
it,  till  one  should  come  and  teach  him.  Socrates  says,  "  It  is  alto- 
*'  gether  necessary  you  should  wait  for  some  person  to  teach  you 
"  how  you  ought  to  behave  yourself,  both  towards  the  gods  and 

*  Religio  LaicL  pag.  73. 


284  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

*'  men,"  Alclblades  replies,  "  And  when  will  that  time  come,  ^50 
*'  crates  ?  And  who  is  he  that  will  instruct  me  ?  With  what  plea- 
**  sure  should  I  look  on  him  !"  Whereupon  Socrates  bids  him  hope 
*'  that  God  will  do  it,  and  will  take  the  mist  off  his  soul,  and  cure 
*'  him  of  that  darkness,  that  hinders  him  from  distinguishing  betwixt 
"  good  and  evil."  Whereupon  Alcibiades  says,  "  I  think  I  must 
*'  defer  my  sacrifices  to  that  time."  To  which  Socrates  returns, 
*'  You  have  reason  :  It  it  is  more  safe  to  do  so,  than  run  a  great 
"  risk."*  And  the  same  Plato  elsewhere  tells  us,  "  That  this  in- 
*'  structer  must  be  a  person  somewhat  more  than  human."  Nor 
was  Jambilichus,  a  famous  Platonick  philosopher,  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  otherwise  minded,  whose  words,  as  I  find  them 
translated  by  Mr.  Ferguson,  run  thus :  "  It  is  not  easy  to  know 
*'  what  God  will  be  pleased  pleased  with,  unless  we  be  either  im- 
*<  mediately  instructed  by  God  ourselves,  or  taught  by  some  per- 
**  son  whom  God  hath  conversed  with,  or  arrived  at  the  know- 
"  ledge  of  it  by  some  divine  means  or  other."f 

5.  There  is  another  thing  that  I  would  gladly  be  informed  of,  and 
that  is,  whether  every  sort  of  knowledge  of  them  be  sufficient  ?  Or, 
is  a  clear,  certain  and  firm  persuasion  needful  ?  If  the  first.  How 
can  a  dark,  uncertain  and  wavering  knowledge  have  that  influence 
upon  practice,  and  that  vigor  to  excite  to  a  compliance  with  them, 
which  is  absolutely  needful  in  order  to  attain  the  benefit  of  them  ? 
If  the  latter,  How  will  our  author  prove,  that  It  was  any  where  to  be 
met  with,  as  to  them  all,  in  the  Heathen  world  ?  Or,  how  will  he 
make  it  appear,  that  It  is  attainable  by  mere  reason  ?  Methinks  our 
author's  words  above  noted,  as  to  the  fifth  article,  seem  not  to  im- 
port any  great  certainty,  This  might  be  urged  to  that  degree  that 
it  would  be  very  hard,  nay,  I  fear  not  to  say  so,  impossible,  for  the 
Deists  to  rid  their  feet  of  it. 

6.  1  would  further  know,  Will  these  five  articles  be  sufficient  to 
this  end,  to  lead  to  eternal  happiness,  whether  men  direct  to  it  or 
not  ?  Is  not  the  intention  of  some  consideration  In  moral  actions  ? 
And  what  if  I  should  deny  that  the  religion  of  Heathens  was  di- 
rected to  this  end,  the  obtaining  of  future  happiness  ?  If  I  should, 
I  know  some  xery  great  men  are  of  my  mind.  I  shall  name  two, 
the  one  a  Christian,  the  other  a  Heathen.  The  first  the  famous 
Samuel  PufFendorfl'*,  counsellor  of  state  to  the  late  king  of  Sweden. 
His  words  are  worthy  to  be  here  transcribed,  though  somewhat 
long.  "  Now  to  look  back  to  the  first  beginnings  of  things,  we  find, 
"  that  before  the  nativity  of  our  Saviour,  the  inhabitants  of  the  whole 
"  universe,  except  the  Jews,  lived  in  gross  Ignorance  as  to  spiritu- 


*  M.  Daciei-s  Plalo  Eng'lishecl,  Vol.  1.  page  249,  250.  Second  Alcibiad.  Or, 
Of  Pi'ayc)-. 

I  I,ib.  4.  ue  Lep:e  Civ.  by  Dr.  Leslie  ag-ainst  Iho  Jews,  pag'.  386.  Ferg'.  E>i- 
quir.  into  moral  virtue,  ?ce.  pag.  177.    Jambili.de  Vita.  Pythag.Cap.  28. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      285 

«  al  affairs.  For  what  was  commonly  taught  concerning  the  gods, 
"  was  for  the  most  part  involved  in  fables,  and  most  extravagant 
"  absurdities.  It  is  true,  some  of  the  learned  among  them  have 
*'  pretended  to  give  some  rational  account  concerning  the  nature 
"  of  the  gods  and  the  soul ;  but  all  this  in  so  imperfect  and  dubi- 
"  ous  a  manner,  that  they  themselves  remained  very  uncertain  in 
*'  the  whole  matter.  They  agreed  almost  all  of  them  in  this  point, 
"  that  mankind  ought  to  apply  themselves  to  the  practice  of  virtue, 
*'  but  they  did  not  propose  any  other  fruits,  but  the  honor  and  bene- 
"  fits,  which  thence  did  accrue  to  civil  society.  For  what  the  po- 
*'  ets  did  give  out  concerning  the  rewards  of  virtue  and  the  punish* 
*'  ments  of  vice  after  death,  was  by  these,  who  pretended  to  be 
"  the  wisest  among  them,  looked  upon  as  fables,  invented  to  terri- 
*'  fy  and  keep  in  awe  the  common  people-  The  rest  of  the  people 
*'  lived  at  random,  and  what  the  Heathens  called  religion,  did  not 
*'  contain  any  doctrine  or  certain  articles  concerning  the  knowledge 
"  of  divine  matters.  But  the  greatest  part  of  their  religious 
**  worship  consisted  in  sacrifices  and  ceremonies,  which  tended 
"  more  to  sports  and  voluptuousness,  than  to  the  contemplation  of 
*'  divine  things.  Wherefore  the  Heathen  religion  did  neither  edi- 
"  fy  in  this  life,  nor  afford  any  hopes  or  comfort  at  the  time  of 
"  death."*  Thus  far  he.  Now  methinks  here  is  a  quite  differ- 
ent account  of  the  Heathen  world  from  that  wiiich  our  author  gives 
us,  and  that  given  by  no  churchman,  but  a  statesman  ;  and  one  as 
learned  as  our  author  too,  and  that  both  in  history  and  the  law  of 
nature,  as  his  works  evince  ;  and  in  my  opinion  it  is  the  juster  of 
the  two  accounts.  The  second  is  Varro,  quoted  by  our  author, 
who  divides  the  religion  of  the  Heathens  into  three  sorts,  Primum 
genus  appellat  ;  Mythicon  secundum  ;  Civile  terthmi  Physicum.f 
The  first  is  that  of  the  poets,  which  is  altogether  Ja6it?ot<5.  The 
other  which  he  calls  natural,  is  tliat  of  the  philosophers,  which  is 
wholly  employed  about  the  nature  of  the  gods.  And  Varro  ex- 
pressly says,  it  was  not  meet  for,  nor  of  any  use  to  the  vulgar. 
The  third  sort  was  what  he  calls  civil,  which  was  wholly  calculated 
for  human  society,  and  its  support ;  and  to  this  all  the  public  wor- 
ship belonged,  if  we  may  believe  Varro  in  the  passage  we  now 
speak  of.  When  he  has  opened  the  nature  of  each  of  them,  he 
concludes  with  an  account  of  the  design  of  them.  "  Prima  theo- 
"  logia  maxime  accommodata  est  ad  iheatrum  :  secunda  scil,  na~ 
turalis  ad  mundum  :  Tertia  ad  iirbem."^  No  word  here  of  eter- 
nal life,  as  the  design  of  any  of  them.  The  passage  itself  fully  ex- 
cludes it,  and  had  it  not  been  too  long,  had  been  worthy  to  be  tran- 
scribed. 


•  Introduct.  Hist,  of  Europe,  pa^.  357.  Ch.  12.  Par.  2. 
t  See  it  also  in  Augiist.  de  Civlt.  Dei,  Lib.    6.  Cap.  5. 

+  "  The  first  thcolog-y  is  fittest  for  the  theatre,  the  second,  to  v/it,  the  nati;- 
"  ral,  for  tlie  world,  and  the  third  for  the  city." 


286  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

7.  To  draw  to  a  conclusion,  Was  it  enough  to  the  Heatliens 
that  these  things  were  sufficient,  although  they  did  not  know  them 
to  be  so  ?  Or  was  it  needful  that  they  should  know  them  to  be  so  ? 
If  the  last  be  said,  how  could  they  be  sure  about  that,  even  the  vul- 
gar sort  of  them,  which  our  author,  after  all  his  application  to  this 
controversy,  could  not  win  to  be  sure  of  ?  If  the  first  be  said,  I 
would  ask  any  Deist,  Was  not  the  end  of  natural  religion  fixed, 
and  were  they  not  certain  ?  Or  might  they  not,  at  least,  be  fixed 
and  certain  about  it  ?  If  it  was  not,  how  could  they  use  or  chuse 
means,  or  direct  them  to  an  end  which  was  not  fixed,  and  they  were 
not  certain  about  ?  If  it  was,  then  with  what  courage  could  they 
tise  means  with  respect  to  an  end  and  means,  in  the  use  of  which 
they  had  so  many  difficulties  to  grapple  with  ;  yet  they  could  not 
be  sure  that  they  were  sufficient  by  the  least  use  of  them  to  gain* 
the  end  ?  Was  it  enough  of  encouragement,  that  they  might  use 
them  at  all  adventures,  not  knowing  whether  they  were,  in  them- 
selves, sufficient  to  reach  the  mark  or  not  ?  Methinks  our  author 
is  very  defective  as  to  motives  to  excite  to  virtue. 


CHAP.    XVIII, 

Containing  an  answer  to  some  of  the  Deists^  principal  arguments 
for  the  sufficiency/  of  Natural  Religion. 

WE  have  now  considered  what  the  Deists  plead  from  univers- 
al consent  ;  and  have  sufficiently  cleared  that  it  is  not  by  them 
proven,  that  the  world  was  agreed  as  to  these  articles  ;  that  in- 
deed the  world  did  not  agree  about  them  ;  that  even  they  who 
owned  them,  were  led  to  this  acknowledgement,  at  least  of 
some  of  them,  rather  by  tradition  than  nature's  light  ;  and  that 
though  they  had  acknowledged  them,  they  are  not  sufficient.  It 
now  remains  that  we  consider  those  arguments,  wherein  they  con- 
ceive the  great  strength  of  their  cause  to  lie. 

The  first  argument,  which  indeed  is  the  strongest  the  Deists 
can  pretend  unto,  is  thus  proposed  by  their  admired  Herbert : 
*'  Et  quidem  quum  media  ad  victum,  vestitumque  heic  commoda 
*'  suppeditant  cunctis  natura  sive  Providentia  rerum  communiSf 
'  suspicari  non  potui,  eundum  Deum,  sive  ex  natura,  sive  ex  gra- 
*'  tia,  in  suppeditandis  ad  bentiorem  hoc  nostro  statum,  mediis, 
"  ulli  hominum  deesse  posse  vel  velle,  adeo  %it  licet  mediis  illis 
"  parum  recte,  vel  feliciter  usi  si7it  Gentiles,  hand  ita  tamen  per 
"  Deum  optimum  maximum  steterit,  quo  minus  salvi  fierent."^ 


For  the  translation,  see  note  at  bottom  of  page  228  of  this  book. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEIBTS.      2»7 

To  the  same  purpose  speaks  Blount  in  his  Religio  Laiciy  and  A. 
W.  in  his  letter  to  him  in  the  Oracles  of  Reason,  of  whom  after- 
wards. The  force  of  all  that  is  here  pleaded  will  best  appear,  if 
it  is  put  into  a  clear  argument,  and  I  shall  be  sure  not  to  wrong  it 
in  the  proposal.     The  argument  runs  thus  : 

The  goodness  of  God  nutkcs  it  necessary  that  all  men  be  pro^ 
vided  in  the  means  necessary  for  future  bliss. 

But  all  men  are  provided  with  no  other  means  of  attaining  fu- 
ture bliss  save  nature's  light. 

Therefore  no  other  m^ans  are  necessary  for  all  men  save  the 
light  of  nature. 

The  minor  or  second  proposition  needs  not  to  be  proven,  since 
it  is  owned  by  those  who  maintain  revelation,  that  it  is  not  given 
to  all  men,  and  therefore  that  many  have  indeed  no  other  light  to 
guide  them,  save  that  of  nature,  in  matters  of  religion,  or  in  any  of 
their  other  concerns. 

The  first  proposition,  «  That  the  goodness  of  God  makes  it  ne- 
cessary that  all  men  be  provided  in  the  means  of  attaining  future 
blessedness,"  is  that  which  they  are  concerned  to  prove.  And 
the  strength  of  what  they  urge  for  proof  of  it  amounts  in  short 
to  this  : 

The  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God  seem  to  render  it  necessary 
that  all  creatures,  but  more  especially  the  rational,  be  provided  in 
all  means  necessary  to  obtain  those  ends  they  were  made  capable 
of,  and  obliged  to  jntrs^ie. 

But  men  are  made  capable  of,  and  obliged  to  pursue  eternal 
Jiappiness  and  felicity. 

Therefore  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God  make  it  necessary 
that  all  men  should  be  provided  in  the  means  necessary  to  obtaiti 
future  and  eternal  bliss. 

Here  we  have  the  strength  of  their  cause,  and  we  shall  there- 
fore consider  this  argument  the  more  seriously,  because  some  seem 
to  be  taken  with  it,  and  look  upon  it  as  having  much  force.  Be- 
fore I  offer  any  direct  answer,  I  shall  make  some  general  reflec- 
tions on  it.  The  first  process  is  only  designed  to  make  way  for 
this  last,  which  indeed  is  the  argument,  and  contains  the  force  of 
what  is  pleaded  by  the  Deists. 

Now  concerning  this  argument,  we  offer  the  few  following  reflec- 
tions, which  will  not  a  little  weaken  its  credit,  and  make  it  look 
suspicious  like. 

1.  That  proposition  whereon  its  whole  weight  leans,  viz.  «  That 
the  goodness  of  God  obliges  him  to  provide  his  creatures  in  the 
means  necessary  for  attaining  their  ends,"  is  one  of  that  sort, 
about  which  we  may,  in  particular  cases  and  applications  of  it,  be 
as  easily  mistaken,  and  are  as  lit  tie  in  fvln:-^-  to  he  positive  in  our 

»  "  In  safety" 


288  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

determination,  as  any  where  else.  For,  although  we  are  surer  of 
nothing  than  that  God  is  good,  and  must  act  congruously  to  his 
goodness,  in  general ;  yet  when  we  come  to  make  particular  in- 
ferences, and  determine  what,  in  point  of  goodness  he  is  obliged 
to  do,  we  are  upon  very  slippery  ground,  especially  if  we  have 
not,  as  in  this  case  it  is,  the  means  to  guide  us.  For,  besides 
that  goodness  is  free  in  its  effects,  divine  and  not  affixed  to  such 
stated  rules  knowable  by  us,  as  justice  is,  goodness,  in  its  actings, 
is  under  the  conduct  and  management  of  all-comprehending  wis- 
dom, which  in  every  case  wherein  God  is  to  act,  considers  that  a 
being  not  only  infinitely  good  is  to  act,  but  also  one  who  is  infinite- 
ly wise,  holy,  just  and  righteous  ;  and  therefore  all-comprehend- 
ing wisdom  takes  under  consideration,  or  rather  has  in  its  view  the 
concernment  of  all  those  properties  of  the  divine  nature  ;  and 
withall,  all  the  circumstances  belonging  to  each  particular  case,  and 
takes  care  that  the  case,  in  all  its  circumstances,  be  so  managed, 
that  not  one  of  the  divine  perfections  shine  to  the  eclipsing  of 
another  ;  but  that  all  of  them  appear  with  a  suitable  lustre.  Now, 
it  is  certain  that  we,  who  are  of  so  narrow  understandings,  and  so 
many  other  ways  incapacitated  to  judge  of  the  ways  of  God,  can- 
not reach  either  the  different  interests  of  the  divine  properties, 
and  judge,  in  a  particular  circumstantiated  case,  what  befits  a 
God,  who  is  at  once  good,  holy,  Avise  and  righteous  ;  nor  can  we 
reach  all  that  infinite  variety  of  circumstances,  which  lying  open  to 
the  all-comprehending  view  of  infinite  and  consummate  wisdom, 
may  make  it  appear  quite  otherwise  to  him  than  to  us.  Hence,  in 
fact,  we  see  that  an  almost  infinite  number  of  things  fall  out  in  the 
government  of  the  world,  which  we  know  not  how  to  reconcile  to 
divine  goodness  :  and  as  many  are  left  undone,  which  we  would  be 
apt  to  think  infinite  goodness  would  make  necessary  to  be  done. 
This  consideration,  if  well  weighed,  would  make  men  very  sparing 
in  determining  any  thing  necessary  to  be  done,  in  respect  of  di- 
vine goodness,  which  either  it  is  evident  he  has  not  done,  or  of 
which  we  are  not  sure  that  he  has  done,  which  perhaps  we  shall 
make  appear,  if  it  is  not  from  what  has  been  already  said,  to  be  the 
case. 

2.  I  observe,  as  to  what  is  advanced,  "  That  man  is  made  ca- 
pable of,  and  obliged  in  duty  to  pursue  eternal  felicity,"  that  al- 
though from  revelation  we  know  this  to  be  true  as  to  man  in  his 
original  constitution,  and  by  the  remaining  desires  of  it  we  may 
guess  that  possibly  it  was  so ;  yet,  if  we  set  aside  divine  revela- 
tion, and  consider  man  in  his  present  state,  concerning  which  the 
question  betwixt  us  and  the  Deists  proceeds,  we  cannot  by  the 
help  of  nature's  light  only,  with  any  certainty  conclude,  "  that 
man  is  capable  of  and  obliged  to  pursue  eternal  felicity."     AYe 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      28t? 

see  the  man  diss<olved  by  death.  Nature's  light  knows  nothing  of 
a  resurrection.  Without  a  resurrection  there  is  nothing  can  be  said 
for  man's  eternal  felicity.  Though  we  grant  his  sou!  to  hiive  no 
principle  of  corruption  in  itself,  and  so  to  be  in  this  sense  immortal  ; 
yet  this  cannot  secure  us  against  the  tV-ars  of  annihilation.  And 
the  gusts  and  desires  of  felicity,  from  which  v/e  may  be  induced 
to  suspect  some  such  state  designed  for  man,  being  apparently 
frustrated,  by  the  dissolution  of  man,  to  which  they  have  a  re- 
spect, cannot  but  make  men,  who  have  no  more  save  nature's  light, 
hesitate  mightily  about  this  assertion  ;  since  it  is  plain,  that  the 
desires  we  find  in  ourseles  of  felicity,  do  respect  the  whole  man  ; 
and  the  aversion  we  have  to  dissolution  respects  our  natures  in 
their  present  entire  frame  and  constitution.  Besides,  it  is  of  mo- 
ment, that  if  man,  now  entire,  is  at  a  loss  how  to  judge  of  the 
ends  for  which  he  was  made,  much  more  must  he  be  supposed  in 
a  strait  how  to  judge  and  determine  for  what  ends  any  particular  part 
belonging  to  his  constituion  was  designed,  after  the  dissolution  of 
the  whole  in  a  separate  state,  that  is,  in  all  its  concernments,  so 
much  hid  from  and  unknown  to  us.  Further,  although  undoubted- 
ly as  long  as  we  are,  it  is  our  duty  to  make  it  our  chief  aim  to 
please  God,  and  seek  for  felicity  only  in  him  ;  yet  since,  not  only 
our  beings,  but  that  felicity  which  may  be  supposed  attainable  by 
us,  are  emanations  from  sovereign,  free  and  undeserved  bounty, 
without  some  intimation  from  him,  in  way  of  promise,  we  can  draw 
no  sure  conclusion  as  to  its  continuance,  were  we  innocent,  much 
less  can  we  being  guilty. 

3.  This  argument  concludes  nothing  in  favour  of  the  Deists ; 
whatever  it  may  say  for  the  Heathens.  For  were  it  granted,  that 
God  is  obliged  to  provide  for  all  men  the  means  necessary  to  future 
felicity  ;  and  that  he  has  not  given  all  men  other  means ;  yet  it 
cannot  be  hence  inferred,  that  he  has  given  no  other  means  to 
some.  In  this  case,  if  all  this  were  granted,  which  yet  we  have 
not  done,  it  would  follow,  that  they,  who  have  no  other  means, 
must  look  on  these  as  sufficient,  and  that  they  really  are  so  :  But 
still  God  is  left  at  liberty  to  prescribe  other  duties  to  any  particu- 
lar persons,  or  nations,  by  revelation ;  and  if  this  revelation  come, 
they  are  obliged,  to  whom  it  comes,  to  attend,  receive  and  obey  it. 
Now,  if  the  scripivres  be  a  divine  revelatinny  attended  with  suffi- 
cient evidence,  which  the  Deists  must  either  allow,  or  overthrow 
what  it  pleads  for  itself;  they  are  everlastingly  undone,  unless  they 
receive  it,  and  comply  with  it. 

4.  I  observe,  that  the  conclusion  of  this  argument,  which  it 
aims  at  the  establishment  of,  viz.  That  God  in  point  of  (roodness, 
must  provide  all  men  in  the  means  necesfsan/  to  future  f elicit jj,  and 
consequently  has  done  it,  is  exceedingly  prejudiced,  by  its  lying 
cross  to  the  plain  sense  and  experience  of  the  world  ia  all  ages,  a*? 

.'57 


290  AN  INCIUIRY  INTO  THE 

has  been  plainly  made  appear.  Now  in  this  case,  where  the  prin^ 
ciples  or  premises  are  dark,  and  such  whereabout  we  may  easily 
be  mistaken,  wliich  is  the  case  here,  as  appears  by  the  two  first 
reflections  ;  and  the  conclusion  carries  a  manifest  contradiction  to 
what  we  must  certainly  know^  and  have  experience  of;  in  this 
case  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  that  there  lies  certainly  a  fallacy 
or  mistake  in  one  or  other  of  the  principles ;  though  we  cannot 
discover  presently  where  it  precisely  is.  And  therefore,  although 
men  could  not  easily  except  against  the  premises  or  principles, 
whence  it  is  deduced;  yet  they  would  think  themselves  sufficient- 
ly warranted,  if  not  plainly  to  reject,  yet  to  be  shy  in  admitting 
the  conclusion :  forasmuch  as  the  admitting  the  conclusion  will 
oblige  them  to  deny  what  their  own  sense  and  experience,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  world,  assures  them  about :  Whereas,  it  is  much 
more  reasonable  to  think  and  determine  that  there  lies  some  fallacy 
in  the  principles,  though  it  may  be  they  are  not  in  case  to  detect 
it.  No  man,  by  the  arguments  against  motion,  can  be  brought  to 
cjuestion  its  being,  much  less  its  possibility  ;  yet  there  are  thou- 
sands, even  no  mean  scholars,  who  cannot  answer  the  arguments 
that  conclude  against  it.  But  in  very  deed,  this  argument  is  not 
so  strong,  as  to  need  so  much  nicety. 

Having  thus  far  weakened  it  by  these  general  reflections,  I  shall 
next  lay  down  and  clear  some  propositions  that  will  lay  a  founda- 
tion for  a  close  unswer  to  it. 

1 .  All  men  at  present,  are  iuA^olved  in  guilt,  have  corrupt  incli- 
nations, and  are  under  an  inability  to  yield  perfect  obedience  to  the 
law,  they  are  subjected  to.  That  all  in  more  or  less,  are  guilty  of 
sin,  cannot  be  well  denied,  and  we  have  heard  the  Oracles  of 
Reason  owning,  <'  That  all  do  err  sometimes,  even  the  best,  in 
their  actions."  That  men  are  conupt,  or  have  corrupt  inclina- 
tions, has  been  above  sufficiently  evinced.  That  all  are  under 
some  sort  of  inability  to  yield  perfect  obedience,  is  attested  by  the 
experience  of  all,  and  besides,  is  an  inevitable  consequent  of  the 
f^jrmer :  for  it  is  not  possible  to  suppose  one  possessed  of  corrupt  in- 
clinations, and  yet  able  to  yield  perfect  obedience.  Nor  need  we 
stand  to  prove  what  the  Deists  own.  For  A.  W.  in  his  Letter  to 
Charles  Blount,  speaking  of  the  law  of  nature  says,  "  I  do  not  say 
that  we  are  able  perfectly  to  obey  it."  I  dispute  not  now  of  what 
sort  this  inability  is,  whether  only  moral,  such  as  arises  from  the 
will's  inclination  to  evil  ;  or  natural,  which  imports  such  aninabili- 
ly  as  supposes  the  nature  of  the  faculties  vitiated,  though  the  fa- 
culties are  not  wanting.  The  condemnings  of  our  own  hearts,  and 
the  nature  of  the  moral  government  we  are  under,  sufficiently  as- 
sures us,  it  is  such  as  does  not  excuse  from  fault  ;  and  further  we 
me  not  concerned  :  though,  after  all,  I  do  not  understand  how  the 
l^'lll  can  be  fixed  in  an  inclination  to  evil,  or  aversion  from  good. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTsi.      291 

unless  the  nature  of  the  will  be  supposed  affected  with  some  indis- 
position, though  the  faculty  is  not  removed.  But  of  this  only  by 
the  bye.  It  is  enough  to  our  present  purpose,  that  man  is  guilty, 
corrupt,  and  thence  unable.  He  that  will  deny  this,  must  sup- 
pose us  blind  and  senseless. 

2.  If  reason  can  ascertain  us  of  any  thing,  it  does  of  this,  that 
things  were  not  originally  thus  with  man,  or  that  man,  when  he  was 
first  made,  was  not  thus  guilty,  corrupt  or  impotent.  Nor  will  any 
dare  to  say,  that  at  first  he  was  guilty.  And  to  assert  him  either 
corrupt  or  impotent,  overthrows  all  the  just  notions  we  have  of  the 
Deity.  How  can  it  be  supposed,  that  infinite  wisdom  could  enact 
laws,  which  were  not  only  not  likely  to  take  effect,  but  really  could 
not  possibly  be  obeyed  by  men  subjected  to  them  !  How  can  we 
suppose  infinite  goodness  to  establish  laws  under  a  penalty,  and  deny 
the  powers  which  were  indispensably  requisite  to  obey  them,  and 
without  which  it  was  not  possible  to  evite  the  penalty !  How  can 
we  suppose  infinite  righteousness  and  holiness  to  consent  to  a  con- 
stitution of  this  kind  !  How  is  it  conceivable,  that  a  God,  wise, 
just  and  good,  should  originally  have  implanted  in  our  natures  in- 
clinations contrary  to  those  laws,  that  were  the  transcript  of,  and 
bore  the  impress  of  all  these  perfections !  Or,  how  can  We  once 
dream  that  he  implanted  inclinations,  which  it  was  criminal  to  satis- 
fy or  comply  with !  For  my  part,  I  see  not  what  can  be  reasonably 
said  in  answer  to  this. 

3.  It  is  further  evident,  that  man  could  not  have  fallen  into  this 
state  he  now  is  in,  or  from  that  wherein  he  was  made,  but  by  his 
own  default.  If  this  be  denied,  I  inquire,  where  shall  the  blame 
be  laid  ?  Will  they  lay  it  at  God's  door  ?  Besides,  that  this  is 
blasphemy,  it  is  further  evident,  that  all  the  former  absurdities  will 
recur  :  For  it  is  to  no  purpose  to  give  powers,  and  take  them  away 
again  without  any  default  in  the  person  who  loses  them,  the  obliga- 
tion to  obedience  or  suffering  upon  disobedience  still  continuing. — 
Nor  can  it  be  laid  upon  any  other,  because  if  man  is  without  his 
own  fault,  robbed  of  the  powers  necessary  to  obey,  the  obligation 
to  obedience  cannot  be  righteously  continued.  Nor  was  it  consist- 
ent with  the  divine  wisdom,  to  have  obliged  men  to  obedience, 
under  a  penalty,  while  there  was  a  possibility  of  man's  losing  the 
power  to  obey,  without  a  fault  on  his  own  part.  It  remains  then, 
that  man  has  by  his  own  fault,  forfeited  what  he  lias  in  this  part  lost. 
And  to  this  our  own  conscience,  and  the  consciences  of  all  sinners, 
who  are  sensible  of  sin,  consent,  that  God  is  free  and  we  guilty. 

4.  Hereon  it  inevitably  follows,  that  man,  is  at  present  in  a  cor 
rupt,  sinful,  and  impotent  state,  into  which  by  his  own  default,  he 
has  fallen.  Nor  see  I  how  it  is  possible  to  avoid  this,  Avhich  only 
sums  up  the  three  preceding  assertions.  The  first  whereof  is  un- 
deniable with  sober  and  ingenuous  persons,  being  attested  by  the 


292  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

plainest  and  clearest  experience,  and  the  other  two  stand  firm  upon 
the  clearest  deductions  that  oui-  reason  can  make,  if  any  Deist 
shall  say,  How  can  this  be  that  we  are  fallen  into  such  a  state  ?  I 
answer,  1 .  The  question  is  not,  How  can  it  be  ?  but,  Is  it  so  ?  I 
think  1  have  said  enough  to  shew  that  it  is  so.  2.  Hereby  we  may 
see  natural  religion  has  its  mysteries  too,  as  well  as  revealed.  And 
I  think  1  have  told  more  than  one  of  them.  3.  If  this  will  not 
satisfy,  then  get  as  much  faith  and  humility  as  will  teach  you  to 
subject  yourself  to  supernatural  instruction,  and  you  may  come  to 
understand  how  it  came  to  be  so.  If  you  will  not,  you  must  re- 
main in  the  dark,  and  there  is  no  help  for  it. 

Now  I  have  laid  a  plain  foundation  for  an  answer  to  this  argu- 
ment, whereon  the  Deists  value  themselves  so  much.  It  was  not 
because  1  thought  so  long  an  answer  needful  for  the  argument,  but 
to  make  the  matter  a  little  more  plain,  that  we  have  discussed  it 
at  this  length. 

Tlie  argument  then  runs  thus,  The  wisdom  and  goodncf^s  of 
God  make  it  iiecessarr/ that  all  his  creatures  should  be  provided  in 
the  means  necessary  for  attaining  the  end  of  their  beings  and  this 
holds  especialli/  as  to  the  rational :  But  man  was  made  capable  of 
eternal  felicity  ;  or  this  is  the  end  of  his  being. 

I  need  say  nothing  more  to  what  has  been  advanced,  than  has 
been  said  above.  I  answer  to  the  first  proposition, — Be  it  allow- 
ed that  God's  wisdom  and  goodness  required  that  the  rational  crea 
tare  should  be  provided  in  the  means  necessary  for  the  attainment 
of  the  end  of  his  being,  in  his  first  make  and  original  state  :  Yet 
neither  God's  goodners,  nor  his  wisdom,  obliges  him  to  restore 
man,  if  by  his  own  fault,  he  has  fallen  from  that  state,  wherein  at 
first  he  was  made.  Now  this  is  the  case  with  man  in  his  present 
fetate,  as  we  have  told  above. 

If  it  is  said,  that  this  is  but  our  assertion,  That  man  is  in  a  lapsed 
state :  I  answer,  1.  I  think  it  is  more  than  an  assertion,  and  must 
do  so  till  I  see  what  I  have  offered  for  proof  of  the  foregoing  pro- 
positions fairly  answered.      Nay,  till  I  see  the  whole  argument? 
thiithave  heretofore  been  offered  against  the  sufficiency  of  natural^ 
religion,    answered.      For,  1   think  they    all  prove  that  man  is  al 
present  in  a  lapsed  state.      But  2.  I  add,  that  the  Deists  must] 
mind,  we  aic  upon  the  defensive,  and  it  is  their  province  to  prove,! 
that  man  in  his  present  condition  is  not  so  situated,  as  we  say.     It* 
vv'as  ex  ahundanii  for  clearing  of  truth,  that  I  condescended  to  prove, 
this.     It  was  enough  to  me  to  have  denied  that  man  is  now  in  his 
orjo-inal  ptuiP,  and  pui  the  proof  upon  them  ;  in  regard  they  affirm, 
iaid  {be  vvhoh  stress  and  force  of  their  arguments  leans  upon  that 
bunrosiiion  which  we  deny. 

The  sccord  argument,  on  which  the  Deists  lay  much  stress,  is 
iJrav.nfrom  the  supposed  ill  consequences  attending  our  opinion.— 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      293 

They  pretend,  that  it  is  horribly  cruel  to  imagine,  that  all  the 
Heathen  world  should  be  lost.  This  they  inculcate  upon  all  occasions, 
i-ather  to  expose  their  adversaries,  I  am  afraid,  than  to  confirm  the 
truth.  The  sum  of  this  argument  we  see  proposed  by  Herbert  in 
his  words  above  quoted.  Where  he  tells  us,  that  all  will  own  his 
articles  to  be  good  ;  Ad  salutem  iamen  (Eternam  comparandam, 
non  sufficere  prohibebunt  nonmdli.  Cakrum,  qui  ita  locutus 
fiierit,  im  ille  quidem  aiidax  ;  nedum  scevuni  temerariumq  ;  effa- 
iiim  mea  scntentia  protukrit.*  The  short  of  the  matter  is  this, 
"  If  natural  rehgion  is  not  suflScient,  we  must  give  all  the  Heathen 
world  for  lost ;  but  this  is  a  cruel  and  harsh  assertion,  injurious  to 
God,  and  cruel  to  such  a  vast  number  of  men."  And  here  they 
raise  a  horrible  outcry.  With  this  they  begin,  and  with  this  they 
end. 

This  argument,  although  it  has  no  force,  as  we  shall  evince,  yet 
makes  such  a  noise  at  a  distance,  that  a  great  many  ingenious  spi- 
rits seem  to  be  mightily  affected  with  it :  I  conceive  therefore  that 
it  will  not  be  improper  to  lay  open  the  causes  of  this,  and  the  ra- 
ther because  they  discover  where  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  lies, 
and  whence  it  is  that  men  are  so  easily  prepossessed  in  this  matter. 
To  this  purpose  then  it  is  to  be  observed, 

1 .  That  there  are  some  things  which  in  themselves  are  not  desira- 
ble ;  to  which  therefore  no  uncorrupted  rational  nature,  much  less 
that  of  God,  could  incline  merely  upon  their  own  account :  which 
yet,  in  some  circumstantiate  cases,  may  be  every  way  congruous 
to  justice  and  righteousness  ;  yea,  and  worthy  of  the  wise  and 
good  God.  The  torment  of  any  rational  creature  is  not  in,  or 
for  itself  desirable  :  God  has  no  pleasure  in  it.  The  nature  of 
man,  if  not  deeply  corrupted,  yea,  and  divested  of  humanity,  re- 
coils at  it ;  yet  there  is  none,  who  will  not  allow  that  in  many  cir- 
cumstantiate cases,  it  is  not  only  worthy  of,  but  plainly  necessary  in 
point  of  wisdom  and  justice,  for  the  most  merciful  of  men,  to  in- 
flict upon  their  felloAV  creatures  such  punishments,  as  their  own 
natures  do  shrink  at  the  apprehensions  of.  Nor  can  it  be  denied, 
that  the  holy  God,  notAvithstanding  of,  and  without  prejudice  to 
his  infinite  goodness,  may,  nay  in  some  cases  must,  likewise  thus 
punish  his  own  creatures.  Now,  if  such  things  are  represented  as 
they  are,  in  their  own  natures,  without  a  due  consideration  of  cir- 
cumstances and  ends  inducing  to  them,  it  is  easy  to  make  them  ap- 
pear not  only  hard,  but  odious. 

2.  However  just,  righteous  and  congruous  such  actions  are ;  yet 
he  who  undertakes  to  expose  them  as  cruel,  barbarous  and  hard, 
especially,  if  he  has  to  do  M'ith  persons,  weak,  ignorant,  partial  in 

*  l)e  Ilcl.  Gentil.  pacf.  217. — "  Yet  some  will  think  they  are  not  sufficient 

lor  attainiiiir  eternal  life.       But  whoever  wo\ilcl  say  so>  would  he  guilty  ofut- 

■lintj  not  only  .1  bold,  not  to  say  a  cruel  and  ai-bitnity  sentence  in  my  opinion." 


294  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

favor  of  the  sufferer,  and  averse  from  the  author  of  the  torment, 
has  a  far  more  easy  task,  even  though  he  is  of  weaker  abilities,  and 
employed  in  defence  of  the  worst  cause,  than  he  who  undertakes 
to  defend  such  actions.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious  ;  all  that 
makes  to  his  purpose,  who  designs  to  expose  the  action  as  cruel, 
lies  open  in  its  nature  and  horror  to  the  thoughts  of  the  most  in- 
considerate ;  and  if  to  this  he  only  sets  off  the  representation  with 
a  little  art,  so  as  to  touch  the  affections,  which  in  this  case  is  easily 
done,  he  has  carried  his  point  ;  the  judgment  is  not  only  deceived, 
but  the  jiffections  are  so  deeply  engaged  in  the  quarrel,  as  to  pre- 
clude the  light  of  the  most  nervous  and  valid  defence  imaginable. 
Whereas  on  the  other  hand,  all  things  are  quite  otherwise.  The 
circumstances  inducing  to  such  actions,  are  usually  deep,  and  not 
so  easily  discernible,  and  therefore  not  to  be  found  out,  without 
much  consideration ;  and  when  they  are  found  out,  they  are  not 
easily  collected,  laid  together,  and  ranged  in  that  order,  which  is 
necessary  to  set  ihe  atrocity  of  the  crime  in  a  due  light,  especially 
where  the  persons  who  are  to  judge  are  weak  and  biassed.  Be- 
sides, the  evil  of  those  crimes,  being  for  most  part  more  spiritual, 
makes  not  so  strong  an  impression  on  the  affections.  And  this^ 
consideration  holds  more  especially  true,  where  the  question  is 
concerning  the  judgments  of  God,  which  proceed  upon  that  com- 
prehensive view,  which  infinite  wisdom  has  of  all  circumstances, 
that  accent  the  evil,  aggravate  tlie  fault,  and  enhance  the  guilt  of 
sins  committed  against  him  ;  many  of  which  circumstances  no  mor- 
tal penetration  can  reach.  And  further,  this  more  particularly 
holds  true,  where  it  is  not  God  himself,  but  man  that  pleads  on  be- 
half of  the  actings  of  God.  It  is  very  observable  to  this  purpose, 
that  historians  of  all  nations  almost  condescend  upon  instances, 
wherein  the  sight  of  severe,  but  just  punishment  of  atrocious  offen- 
ders has  not  only  excited  the  compassion  of  the  populace  to  the 
sufferers,  but  enraged  them  against  the  judges.  Even  they  Mho 
would  have  been  ready  to  reclaim  against  the  partiality  and  negli- 
gence of  the  judge,  if  the  crimes  had  been  passed  without  just 
punishment,  when  they  see  the  punishment  inflicted,  through  a 
fond  sort  of  compassion  to  the  sufferers,  complain  of  the  cruelty 
of  the  judge,  laying  aside  all  thoughts  of  the  atrocity  of  the  crime. 
3.  Where  they,  who  make  it  their  business  to  traduce  such  ac- 
tions, as  hard  and  cruel,  and  they  also,  whom  they  labor  to  per- 
suade of  this,  are  connected  by  alliance,  or  common  interest  with 
the  sufferers,  are  themselves  in  the  same  condemnation,  or,  upon 
the  same  and  such  like  accounts,  obnoxious  to  that  justice,  which 
adjud<}:cs  those  sufferers  to  these  torments,  which  they  study  to 
representas  cruel  and  barbarous, it  is  no  wonder  to  see  that  the  repre- 
sentation makes  such  deep  impressions,  and  rivets  such  a  persuasion, 
that  the  punishments  are  cruel  and  hard,  as  may  not  only  bias  a  litllc 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        295 

against  any  defence  that  can  be  made  for  the  judge,  but  may  even 
make  them  refuse  to  admit  of  any  apology,  or  condescend  so  far 
as  to  give  any  that  can  be  made  a  fair  hearing.  But  all  unbiassed 
persons  must  allow^,  that  such  can  never  be  admitted  judges  com- 
petent, as  to  what  is  just  or  unjust,  hard  or  otherwise  ;  the  case 
being,  in  effect,  their  own,  and  they  by  this  means  being  made 
both  judge  and  party. 

4.  However  great,  terrible  and  heavy  any  punishment  that  God 
is  supposed  to  inflict,  may  in  its  own  nature  appear,  or  how  great 
soever  the  number  of  the  sufferers  may  be,  yet  we  can  never,  from 
the  severity  of  the  punishment,  or  the  number  of  the  sufferers, 
disprove  its  justice,  unless  we  can  make  it  appear,  that  no  circum- 
stances, which  can  possibly  fall  under  the  reach  of  infinite  wisdom, 
can  render  such  severity  towards  so  many  persons,  worthy  of  him. 
Now,  however  easy  this  undertaking  may  appear  to  persons  less 
considerate,  it  will  have  a  far  other  aspect  to  such  as  impartially 
ponder,  that  all  men  are  manifestly  partial  in  favor  of  those  of 
their  own  race,  and  in  a  case  which  is,  or  may  be  their  own,  and 
have  no  suitable  apprehensions  of  the  concernments  of  the  divine 
glory  in  it,  or  no  due  regard  for  them  :  Besides,  such  is  their  shal- 
lowness, that  they  can  neither  have  under  view  many  important 
circumstances,  that  are  fully  exposed  to  all  comprehending  wisdom, 
nor  can  they  fidly  understand  the  weight,  even  of  these  circum- 
stances, that  they  either  do,  or  may,  in  some  measure  know. 

5.  Every  man  who  is  wise  and  just,  when  either  he  hears  of,  or 
sees  any  punishment  that  appears  very  severe  and  terrible,  must 
suspend  his  judgment  as  to  the  hardship  of  it,  till  the  author  of  it 
is  fully  heard  as  to  the  inducements,  and  neither  ought  he  to  deny 
what  his  eyes  see,  his  ears  hear,  or  he  is  otherwise  informed  of,  up- 
on sufficient  evidences.  He  is  neither  to  question  the  matter  of 
fact,  nor  condemn  the  judge  of  cruelty,  because  of  the  seeming  se- 
verity of  the  punishment.  This  is  a  piece  of  common  justice, 
which  every  judge,  even  amongst  men,  may  reasonably  claim  from 
his  fellow  creatures,  although  his  actions  and  the  reasons  of  them, 
cannot  be  supposed  to  lie  so  far  out  of  their  ken,  as  those  of  the 
divine  judgments  :  Much  more  is  it  reasonable  for  men  to  pay  this 
deference  to  God,  considering  how  unable  the  most  elevated  capaci- 
ties are  to  penetrate  iiito  all  the  reaso)is,  which  an  infinitely  wise 
God  may  have  under  view  ;  and  there  is  the  more  reason  for  this, 
since  man  also  is  naturally  so  very  apt  to  be  partial  in  his  own  fa- 
vor, and  to  fail  of  giving  a  due  regard  in  his  thoughts  unto  the  con- 
cernments of  divine  glory. 

These  observations,  as  they  are  in  themselves  unquestionably 
true,  so  they  do  fully  lay  open  the  causes  of  that  general  accep- 
tance, which  this  plea  of  the  Deists  has  obtained  with  less  attentive 
minds  ;  and  how  little  weight  is  to  be  laid  upon  them..    In  a  word» 


296  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

if  they  are  well  considered,  they  are  sufScient  to  enervate  the  force 
of  this  whole  plea. 

But  lest  the  Deists  should  think  their  argument  slighted,  or  that 
consciousness  of  our  own  weakness,  makes  us  chuse  long  weapons 
to  fight  with,  I  shall  closely  consider  the  argument.  Perhaps  what 
makes  a  noise,  at  a  distance,  will  be  less  frightful  if  we  take  a  near- 
er view  of  it.  We  deny  that  the  Heathen  world  had  means  suffi- 
cient for  obtaining  eternal  happiness.  The  Deists  say,  this  is  cru- 
el and  rash.     Let  us  now  see  whence  this  may  be  proven. 

1 .  Doth  our  cruelty  lie  in  this.  That  we  have  laid  down  an  as- 
sertion, upon  which  it  follows,  that  in  fact,  all  the  Heathen  world 
are  lost  ?  But  now,  do  not  the  Deists  own,  that  in  very  deed,  all 
impenitent  sinners  must  perish  ?  No  doubt  they  do,  who  talk  so 
much  of  the  necessity  of  repentance.  Well,  are  not  all  who  want 
revelation,  guilty  of  gross  sins  ?  Is  not  idolatry  a  gross  sin  ?  are 
they  not  all  plunged  in  the  guilt  of  it  ?  Socrates,  the  most  consi- 
derable person  for  his  virtue,  that  lived  before  Christ,  cannot  be 
excused.  He  denied  his  disowning  the  gods  of  Athens.  Rejoin- 
ed in  their  worship.  If  this  was  against  his  conscience,  the  more, 
was  his  fault.  And,  even  with  his  dying  breath,  he  ordered  a  cock 
to  be  sacrificed  to  ^sculapius.  Epictetus,  the  best  perhaps  among 
the  philosophers  who  lived  after  Christ,  in  his  Enchiridion,  enjoins 
to  worship  after  the  mode  of  the  country  where  we  live  ;  and  no 
doubt  practised  as  he  taught.  Gentlemen,  condescend,  if  ye  can, 
upon  one,  who  was  not  guilty  of  gross  sins.  Did  they  repent  ? 
What  evidence  bring  you  of  it  ?  That  the  multitude  lived  and 
died  impenitent,  none  dare  question.  That  there  was  07ie  peni- 
tent none  can  prove.  That  the  best  of  them  were  guilty  of  gross 
sins  cannot  be  denied,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  their  penitence. 
Yea-,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  they  looked  upon  repentance 
as  a  virtue  ;  but  much  to  the  contrary.  Well,  gentlemen,  do  not 
your  own  principles  conclude,  that  the  bulk  of  the  Heathen  world 
are,  in  fact,  inevitably  lost  ?  And  that  there  is  but  little  ground  of 
hope,  and  great  reason  to  fear,  that  it  fared  not  much  better  with 
the  few  virtuosi. 

2.  But  doth  the  cruelty  lie  in  the  number  of  persons  supposed 
to  be  lost  ?  No.  This  cannot  be  said.  For  if  the  cause  be  suffi- 
cient, the  number  of  the  condemned  makes  not  the  condemnation 
the  more  cruel.  Besides,  let  them  go  as  narrowly  to  work  as  they 
can,  they  are  few,  very  few,  for  whom  they  can  plead  exemption  : 
and  their  pleas  for  that  handful  will  be  very  lame.  So  that  for  any 
thing  I  see,  the  Deists,  in  this  respect,  are  not  like  to  be  much 
more  merciful  than  we. 

3.  But  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this,  That  we  suppose  them 
condemned  without  a  cause,  or  without  one  that  is  sufficient.  But 
this  we  do  not.  we  suppose  none  to  be  condemned,  who  are  not  sin- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      297 

iiers  against  God,  and  trangressors  of  a  law  stamped  with  his  au- 
thority, which  they  had  access  to  know.  And  were  not  the  best 
of  them  guilty  of  gross  sins  ?.  What  evidence  have  we  of  their  re- 
pentance? Is  it  not  just,  even  according  to  the  Deists'  pruiciples, 
to  condL:mn  impenitent  sinners  ?  Thus  we  suppose  none  condemn- 
ed, but  tor  tlieir  sins. 

4.  But  perhaps  the  cruelly  lies  in  this,  That  we  suppose  them 
all  equally  miserable  ;  Socrates  to  be  in  no  better  case  than  JNero. 
But  this  follows  not  upon  our  assertion.  None  are  supposed  mise- 
rable beyond  the  just  demerit  of  their  sins. 

5.  Well,  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this,  That  we  suppose  their 
torments  after  this  life  to  be  intense  in  degree,  or  ©f  a  longer  con- 
tinuance than  their  sins  deserve.  This  we  are  sure  of,  that  their 
sins  being  offences  against  God,  deserve  a  deeper  punishment,  than 
some  men  can  well  think  of ;  and  that  God  is  just,  and  will  propor- 
tion punishments  exactly  to  offences,  and  have  a  just  regard,  as  well 
to  the  real  alleviations  as  agravations  of  every  sin.  And  if  God  has, 
in  his  word,  determined  that  every  sin  committed  against  him,  de- 
serves eternal  punishment,  no  doubt  his  judgment  is  according  io 
truth.     We  are  not  judges  in  the  case. 

6.  Well,  but  the  rashness  and  cruelty  perhaps  lies  here.  That 
by  our  assertion  we  are  obliged  to  pass  a  positive  and  peremptory 
judgment  about  the  eternal  state  of  all  the  Heathen  world,  that 
they  are  gone  to  hell,  and  laid  under  everlasting  punishments,  leav- 
ing no  room  for  the  mercy  of  God.  But  to  this  we  say,  revelation 
lias  taught  us,  even  where  there  is  the  justest  ground  of  fear,  to 
speak  modestly  of  the  eternal  condition  of  others,  and  to  leave  the 
judgment  concerning  this  to  the  righteous  God,  to  whom  alone  it 
belongs,  and  who  will  do  no  iniquitij.  That  ail  the  Heathen  world 
deserve  punishment,  cannot,  without  impudence,  be  denied.  That 
God  will  pass  any  of  them  without  inflicting  the  punishment  the)"^ 
deserve,  neither  revelation  nor  reason  give  us  any  ground  to  think. 
That  none  of  them  shall  be  punished  beyond  their  deservings, 
scripture  and  reason  demonstrate.  But  in  these  things  our  assertion 
of  the  insufficiency  of  natural  religion  is  not  concerned.  It  obli- 
ges us  to  pass  no  judgment  further  than  this,  "  That  the  Heathens, 
*'  and  all  who  want  revelation,  had  no  means  sufficient  to  bring  them 
"  to  eternal  happiness,  and  ihat  consequently  they  had  no  reasoQ 
"  to  expect  it ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude  them  posses- 
"  sed  of  it.''  And  in  this  case  we  leave  them  to  be  disposed  of, 
as  to  their  state,  after  this  life,  by  the  wisdom  and  justice  of 
God. 

7.  But  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this.  That  they  are  supposed 
to  want  the  means  necessary  to  attain  eternal  liappiness,  while  yet 
they  are  capable  of,  and  exposed  to  eternal  misery  for  their  sins. 
But,  I.  How  wil)  the  Deists'  prove.  That  God,  without  a  promise. 


598  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

is  obliged  to  give  man  eternal  happiness  for  his  obedience  ?  2.  Since 
none  of  them  are  to  be  punished  beyond  the  just  demerit  of  their 
sins,  may  not  God  righteously  inflict  that  punishment,  whatever  it 
is,  that  their  sins,  in  strict  justice,  deserve,  though  he  had  never 
proposed  a  reward,  which  reason  can  never  prove  our  best  actions 
worthy  of,  even  though  we  had  continued  innocent  ?  But,  3.  That 
man,  in  his  present  case,  has  lost  the  knowledge  of  eternal  feUcity, 
and  the  means  of  attaining  it,  and  is  unable  to  attain  it,  is  owing 
not  to  any  defect  of  bounty  and  goodness  of  God,  much  less  of 
justice ;  but  only  unto  the  sin  of  man,  as  has  been  demonstrated 
in  our  answer  to  the  foregoing  argument,  by  reasons  drawn  from 
nature's  light.  Notwithstanding  of  which,  it  must  still  be  owned^ 
that  nature's  light  .cannot  acquaint  us  how  man  fell  into  his  present 
lamentable  condition,  as  we  have  above  made  appear. 

o.  But  is  it  not  safer  and  more  modest,  may  some  say,  to  sup- 
pose, that  God  of  his  great  mercy  did,  by  revelation,  communicate 
to  some  of  the  best  of  the  Heathens,  who  improved  nature's  light 
to  the  greatest  advantage,  what  was  further  necessary  to  their  sal- 
vation, or,  at  least  to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  happiness,  of  some- 
what inferior  degree  to  that  which  is  prepared  for  Christians.  I 
know  many  Christian  writers  of  old  and  of  late  have  multiplied  hy- 
pothesis of  this  kind :  Some  have  supposed  apparitions  of  angels, 
saints,  nay  damned  souls  and  devils ;  of  which  stories  I  am  told  that 
Collins  discourses  at  large,  in  the  second  book  of  his  treatise  De. 
Animabus  Paganorum.^  Some  tell  us,  "  That  to  such  of  them 
as  lived  virtuously,  God  always,  at  some  time  or  other,  sent  some 
man  or  angel  savingly  to  illuminate  them."t  So  the  Areopagites. 
Some  tell  us  of  Christ's  preaching  to  them  in  purgatory  ;  so  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus ;  some  will  have  them  instructed  by  the  Sibylls, 
as  the  same  author  says  elsewhere  ;  some  talk  of  their  commerce 
with  the  Jews,  in  which  way  no  doubt  some  of  them  came  to  sa- 
ving acquaintance  with  God ;  othei-s  say,  that  upon  their  worthy 
improvement  of  their  naturals,  God  might  and  did  reveal  Christ  to 
them  and  spirituals,  because  hahenti  dahitur-X  So  Arminius.  And 
of  this  Herbert  frequently  intimates  his  approbation,  but  with  an 
evident  contradiction  to,  and  subversion  of,  his  whole  story  about 
the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion.  Besides,  the  bottom  of  this  is 
a  rotten  Pelagian  supposition  of  a  merit  in  their  good  works  :  and 
that  habenii  dabitur,  spoken  of  in  another  case,  after  all  the  pains 
some  are  to  stretch  it,  will  not  reach  this  case  ;  and  after  all  we 
are  left  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  way  wherein  they  will  have  super- 
naturals  communicated  to  them.  The  late  ingenious  author  of  the 
Conference  rcilh  a  Theist,  supposes  a  place  provided  for  the  sobei' 


De  ccelesti  Hierar.    Ch.  9.  f  Strom.  Lib.  6. 

"  To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      i29y 

Pagans  in  another  world,  wherein  thej  shall  enjoy  a  considerable 
happiness,*  and  wrests  what  our  Lord  says  to  his  disciples,  John 
xiv.  3.  of  the  mam/  mansions  that  are  in  his  Father's  house,  to 
favor  his  notion.  But  now  as  to  all  these  suppositions  and  others 
of  the  same  alloy,  however  their  authors  may  please  themselves 
in  them,  I  think  they  are  to  be  rejected.  Nor  is  this  from  any  de- 
fect of  charity  to  the  Heathens,  but  because  they  are  supported 
by  no  foundation,  either  in  scripture  or  reason.  However,  some  of 
them  are  possible,  yet  generally  speaking,  none  of  them  have  the 
countenance  so  much  as  of  a  probable  argument.  The  scripture 
proof,  adduced  by  that  last  mentioned  ingenious  author,  has  no 
weight  in  it.  There  is  no  countenance  given  to  it  from  the  con- 
text, nor  any  other  place  of  scripture,  and  I  cannot  approve  of  his 
boldness  in  stretching  our  Lord's  words  beyond  what  his  scope  re- 
quires. But  these  things  have  been  considered  at  length  by  others, 
whom  the  reader  may  consult.f  All  these  suppositions  are  at  best 
but  ingenious  fancies,  wherewith  their  authors  may  please  them- 
selves, but  can  nev^r  satisfy  others.  Nor  can  they  be  of  any  ad- 
vantage to  the  Heathens.  I  think  I  have  made  it  sufficiently  ap- 
pear in  the  foregoing  discourse,  that  they  wanted  means  sufficient 
to  lead  them  to  salvafion^  and  so  had  no  ground  to  support  a  rea- 
sonable hope  of  it.  It  is  granted,  even  by  those  whose  peculiar 
hypothesis  in  divinity  lead  them  to  be  most  favorable  to  the  Hea- 
tliens,  that  the^/  had  no  federal  certainty  of  salvation  ;  and  for  any 
uncovenanted  mercy,  of  which  some  talk,  I  know  nothing  about  it. 
Scripture  is  silent.  Reason  can  determine  nothing  in  it ;  and  there- 
fore disputes  about  it  are  to  be  waved.  It  is  unwarrantable  curi- 
osity for  men  to  pry  into  the  secrets  of  God  ;  things  that  are  re- 
vealed do  belong  to  us.  Where  revelation  stops  we  are  to  stop. 
Even  Herbert  himself  dare  carry  the  matter  no  further  than  a  may 
be  ;  and  what  may  be,  may  not  be. 


CHAP.     XIX. 

Wherein  Herberts  Reasons  for  publishing  his  Books  in  Defence 
of  Deism  are  examined  and  found  neak. 

THE  learned  Herbert,  toward  the  close  of  his  book  De  Reli- 
gione  Laid,  to  justify  the  publication  of  his  thoughts,  as  to  a 
catholic  religion,  common  to  all  mankind,  mentions  seven  supposed 
advantages  of  this  opinion,  or  so  many  pleas  for  Deism.  What 
weight  there  is  in  them,  we  shall  now  consider. 

He  introduces  himself  with  a  protestation  that  he  published 
not  his  book  with  any  ill  design  against  Christianity,  which  he 

*  Nicol.  Confer.  Part  2,  pat^.  80. 

t  Sec  Anth.  Tuckney,  Appendix  to  his  Sermon  on  Acts  iv.  12- 


iiOO  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

lionops  with  the  title  of  optima  religlo  :  But  on  the  contrary  says, 
That  he  aimed  at  establishing  it,  and  intended  to  strengthen  true 
faith,  "  Deniqve  me  animo  adeo  non  optmuB  religioni  infensOf 
."  aiit  a.vent  fide  al'mio  fradabmi  htinc  edidissetestor ;  ututram- 
"  que  statumhiare  in  animo  habiierim,''^  Src. 

I  shall  not  dive  into  his  designs  ;  for  which  he  has  long  ago  ac- 
counted unto  the  only  competent  Judge.  But  of  the  design,  or 
rather  tendency  of  his  books,  we  may  safely  judge.  And  as  to 
this  I  say,  that  if  it  is  granted,  that  the  scriptures  are  the  only 
standard  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  cannot  modestly  be  de- 
nied ;  I  shall  upon  this  supposition  undertake  to  maintain  against 
any  who  will  defend  him,  That  his  books  aim  at  the  utter  subver- 
sion of  the  Christian  religion,  that  his  principles  overthrow  entire- 
ly the  authority  of  the  scriptures,  and  are  not  only  inconsistent  with, 
but  destructive  to  the  essentials  of  Christianity.  And  I  further 
add,  that  this  is  every  where  so  obvious  in  his  writings,  that  it  will 
require  a  strange  stretch  of  charity,  to  believe  our  author  could 
be  ignorant  of  it. 

Our  author  having  told  us  what  was  not  his  design,  proceeds 
next  to  condescend  upon  the  reasons  inducing  him  to  assert  this 
common  religion.     And 

1.  He  tells  us  that  he  maintains  this  common  religion,  "  Quod 
*'  jrovidcntlam  divinam"  &c.  Because  it  "  vindicates  the  uni- 
"  versa!  Providence  of  God,  God's  principal  attribute,  whose  dig- 
*'  nity  can  never  be  sufficiently  supported.  Neither  do  any  par- 
*'  ticular  religion,  or  faith  (to  give  you  our  author's  own  words, 
"  Fides  quaniumvis  laxaj  maintain  this,  so  as  to  represent  God's 
•t'  care  of  all  mankind,  in  providing  for  them  such  common  prin- 
**  ciples  as  those  contained  in  our  catholic  truths." 

Here  our  author  teaches  two  things,  and  I  think  them  both 
false.  (1.)  He  tells  us,  "That  his  catholic  religion  vindicates  the 
^'  universal  providence  of  God,  or  serves  to  maintain  its  honor." 
This  I  think  false.  The  foundation  of  it  we  have  proved  to  be 
not  only  precarious,  but  false.  For  we  have  cleared,  that  his  five 
articles  did  not  luiiversally  obtain  ;  and  further,  that  if  they  had, 
they  were  not  sufficient  to  happiness.  Yea,  our  author  himself, 
after  he  has  told  urs,  that  the  universal  providence  of  God  cannot 
he  maintained,  unless  we  suppose  him  to  have  provided  all  his 
creatures,  in  the  nseans  necessary  for  obtaining  their  happiness, 
ii^xt  informs  us  that  he  has  provided  man  in  no  other  means,  save 
ihesc  five  articics.f  And  he  further  tells  us  in  his  words  above 
fjuoled,  that  he  dare  not  positively  say  they  arc  sufficient,  nor  can 

*  Tferbert  Ke]ii:;-.  Liiici,  pajj.  28. — "In  fine,  I  profess  that  I  have  published 
•'  this  treat  jbc  With  ;i  iniiul  so  fai'  from  beinf^  hostile  to  the  best  religion,  or 
"  averse  tf.tnie  faith.,  that  I  inteiiucd  to  have  established  both." 

■t  J>  Hd.  Laici^  p:ig-.  1,  4. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     301 

vre  be  sure  of  it,  since  it  depends  upon  God's  secret  judgments, 
which  we  cannot  certainly  know.*  And  we  have  heard  Blount 
above  own,  That  Deism  is  not  safe,  unless  it  be  pieced  out  by 
some  help  from  Christianity .f  Well,  is  this  the  way  our  author 
asserts  the  honor  of  divine  universal  Providence,  first  to  tell  us, 
that  its  honor  cannot  be  maintained  without  supposing  a  sufficient 
religion  universally  to  have  obtained,  and  then  to  tell  us  that  he 
is  not  sure  that  ever  there  was  such  a  religion  ?  Is  not  this  the 
plain  way  to  bring  the  universal  Providence  of  God  in  question  ? 
Again,  2dly,  Our  author  teaches,  "  That  no  particular  religion 
"  can  support  the  honor  of  universal  Providence."  This  I  take 
to  be  also  false.  The  Christian  religion  asserts  and  proves,  that 
God,  who  has  created  all  things,  preserves  them,  and  governs  them 
in  a  way  suitable  to  their  nature  and  circumstances,  and  in  so  far 
clears  the  equity  of  God's  proceedings  with  the  Heathen  world, 
in  particular,  as  may  satisfy  sober  men.  It  acquaints  us,  that  God 
did,  at  first,  provide  man  in  a  covenant  security  for  eternal  happi- . 
ness,  and  in  means  sufficient  for  obtaining  of  it  ;  that  man,  by  his 
own  fault,  incapacitated  himself  for  the  use  of  these  means,  and 
forfeited  the  advantage  of  the  covenant-security  ;  that  God,  in 
justice  hath  left  the  Heathen  world  under  the  disadvantage  of  that 
forfeiture  ;  that  during  the  time  he  sees  meet  to  spare  them,  he 
governs  them,  in  such  a  way  as  is  suitable  to  their  lapsed  state,  of 
which  we  have  spoken  before.  We  confess  we  are  not  able  to  ex- 
plain all  the  hard  chapters  in  the  book  of  Providence,  and  solve 
every  difficulty  relating  thereto  ;  but  this  affords  no  ground  for 
the  denial  either  of  God's  general  or  special  providence.  As  the 
difficulties  about  God's  omniscience,  omnipresence,  eternity,  &c. 
will  not  justify  a  denial  of  these  attributes,  or  the  existence  of  a 
Deity  vested  with  them  ;  so  neither  will  the  difficulties  about  Pro- 
vidence justify  a  refusal  of  it  ;  and  if  this  vindication  of  Provi- 
dence fail  of  giving  satisfaction,  I  am  sure  Herbert's  will  never 
satisfy. 

What  our  author  adds  about  his  fides  quantumvis  laxa,  which 
he  supposes  some  to  stand  up  for,  and  maintain  as  a  sufficient  re- 
ligion, I  do  not  well  understand.  But  yet  since  this  expression  is 
very  often  used  in  the  writings  of  this  author,  in  reproach  of  par- 
ticular religions,  especially  the  Christian,  which  lays  the  greatest 
stress  upon  faith,  it  cannot  be  passed  without  some  remark.  That 
wh'ch  our  author  seems  to  intend  by  this  fides  quantumvis  laxa, 
or  "  faith  how  lax  soever  it  may  be,"  is  a  faith  that  consists  in  a 
general  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  without  any  corres- 
pondent influence  upon  practice.  And  he  would  have  us  to  believe 
that  the  Christian  religion,  or,  at  least,  Christians,  do  reckon  this 

• 

*  De  Rel.  Gentil.  pag.  2lr. 
I  Oracles  of  Ucasoii,  pag.  87. 


302  AN  INCIUIRY  INTO  THE 

sufficient  to  salvation.  This  is  a  base  and  disengenuous  calumny. 
And  our  author  could  not  but  know  it  to  be  such,  if  he  was  ac- 
quainted either  with  the  scriptures,  or  the  writings  and  lives  of 
that  set  of  Christians  against  whom  this  calumny  is  particularly 
levelled,  who  unanimously  teach,  that  the  faith  that  is  available,  is 
that  which  works  by  love,  and  is  to  be  found  only  in  them  who 
are  created  in  Christ  Jesus  to  good  works.  If  Herbert  was  a 
stranger  to  the  one  or  the  other,  he  was  the  unmeetest  person  in 
the  world  to  set  up  for  a  judge  and  censurer  of  them. 

2.  The  next  advantage  that  Herbert  condescends  on,  of  his 
catholic  religion,  is,  Quod  probam  facidtatem  homini  insitarum 
conformationem,  usumque  doceat.  Nulla  enim  datur  Veritas  ca- 
tholica,  guce.  nan  in  foro  interna  describitur,  vel  non  illuc  saltern 
necessario  reducitur.'^  That  is,  "  This  alone  teaches  man  the 
"  due  use  and  application  of  his  faculties."  But  this  is  only  our 
author's  assertion.  Christianity  is  no  less  consistent  with  the  due 
«se  of  our  faculties  and  their  application  to  their  proper  objects, 
than  our  author's  religion.  It  destroys  none  of  them,  lays  none  of 
them  aside,  and  does  violence  to  none  of  them  ;  but  restores,  im- 
^  proves  and  elevates  them  to  their  most  noble  and  proper  use. 

Our  author  adds,  for  a  confirmation  of  his  assertion,  that  there 
is  no  catholic  verity,  but  what  either  is  inscribed  in  the  mind,  or 
what  may  be  reduced  to  some  innate  truth.  Whether  there  li 
any  verity  inscribed  in  the  mind  in  our  author's  sense,  I  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Locke  has  proven,  that  there  is  none  such,  and  in  par- 
ticular has  evinced  that  our  author's  five  articles  are  not  innate 
truths,  no  not  according  to  the  description  he  himself  gives  of  snch 
notices.  He  examines  the  characters  of  innate  truths  given  by 
our  author,  and  undertakes  to  shew  them  not  applicable  to  his  five 
articles.f 

S.  Our  author  tells  us,  he  embraced  this  catholic  religion,  quod 
incontroversa  a  controversis  distinguat,X  Sec  It  is  needless  to 
repeat  all  our  author's  words  here.  What  he  says  is  in  short  this, 
That  "  particular  religion  (and  here  he  must  be  understood  to 
"  speak  particularly  of  Christianity)  contains  austere  and  fright- 
«  ful  doctrines  that  prejudice  some  men  of  squeamish  stomachs 
«  ai  all  religion,'"  (and  is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  that  men  who 
have  no  heart  to  any  religion,  are  easily  disgusted  ?)  But  our  au- 
thor has  provided  them  with  one  that  will  not  offend  the  most  nice 
and  delicate  palate,  as  consisting  of  principles  universalhj  agreed 
to  ;  which  he  supposes  such  persons  will  readily  close  with,  and 
£o  retain  some  religion,  whereas  otherwise  they  would  have  none. 


*  Herbert  Rel.  Laici,  pag'.  28. 

t  Locke's  Essay  on  Human.  Under.  Book  1.  Ch.    §  15,  16,  17,  18,  19. 
if  "  ne^use  it  distinguishes  uncontrovertcd  points  from  those  %vhich  are 
*'  controverted." 


PRINCIPLES  OP  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      30ti 

Here  our  author  evidently  designs  a  thrust  at  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, and  insinuates  that  it  is  stuffed  with  austere  and  horrid  doc- 
trines. I  know  full  well  what  are  the  doctrines  he  particularly 
aims  at :  the  doctrines  concerning  the  corruption  of  mail's  nature, 
the  decrees  of  God,  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  are  particularly  in- 
tended. But  if  these  doctrines  are  considered  as  delivered  in  the 
scriptures,  or  taught  by  Christians  according  to  the  scriptures, 
what  is  there  offensive  in  them  ?     What  horrid  or  frightful  ? 

I  do  indeed  grant,  that  some  Christians,  through  their  weakness, 
without  any  1)1  design,  have  so  represented,  or  rather  misrepresent- 
ed some  of  these  points,  particularly  concerning  the  decrees  of 
God,  as  to  give  offence  to  sober  persons  of  all  persuasions.  But 
as  to  this,  they,  and  they  only,  are  to  bear  the  blame.  As  for  the 
doctrines.  What  have  they  done  ?  Must  the  fault  of  the  profes- 
sors be  cast  on  the  religion  they  profess  ?  This  no  reasonable  man 
will  allow  to  be  just. 

I  do  likewise  acknowledge,  that  whereas  there  are  different  senti- 
ments among   Christians    concerning  some    of  these    points ;  and 
some  of  the  contending  parties  have  so  unfairly  stated,  and  foully 
misrepresented  the  opinions  of  their  opposers,  in  the   disguise  of 
.  imaglnarj^  consequences,  or  of  consequences,  at  least,  denied  and  ab- 
horred by  the  maintainers  of  the  opinions  they  oppose,  so  as  to  give 
-  some  umbrage  to  this,  startle  weak  men,  and  prejudice  them  against 
religion.     This  they  do  to  expose  their  adversaries,  and  frighten 
'  others  from  the  reception  of  their  sentiments.      For  such  I  can 
make  no  excuse.    The  practice  itself  is  scandalously  disingenuous, 
and  can  admit  of  no  reasonable  vindication,  and  so  fair  an  occasion 
being  given,  I  cannot  pass  It  without  a  remark.     A  notable  instance 
of  this  sort  I  meet  with  in  a  book  just  now  come  to  hand.      The 
Ingenious  author  of  the  short  Method  with  the  Deists,  in  a  letter  di- 
rected to  Charles  Gildon,  newly  recovered  from  Deism,  cautions 
him  against  the  Dissenters  ;  and  to  enforce  his  caution,  presents 
him  with  such  an  account  of  their  opinions,  as  is  indeed  suited  to 
frighten  the  reader.     He  tells  him  that  they  maintain,  "  That  God 
•'  sees  no  sin  in  the  elect,  let  them  live  never  so  wickedly.     They 
"^^  damn  the  far  greater  part  of  the  world,  by  Irreversible  decrees 
"  of  reprobation,  and  say,  that  their  good  works  are   hateful  to 
"  God  ;  and  that  it  is  not  possibly  in  their  power  to  be  saved,  let 
'•'■  them  believe  as  they  will,  and  live  never  so  religiously :  They 
*'  take  away  free  wilUn  man,  and  make  him  a  perfect  machine. — 
"  They  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  to  create  men  on  purpose  to 
"  damn  them ;  they  make  his  promises  and  threatening^  to  be  of 
"  no  effect,  nay,  to  be  a  sort  of  burlesqueing,  and  insulting  those 
'*  whom  he  has  made  miserable,  which  is  an  hideous  blasphemy."*^ 

■  T-ttlcT  subJQinol  to  the  Deist's  Manuel,  page  22,  33. 


304  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

But  to  what  purpose  is  all  this  said  ?  1 .  Did  not  the  writer  know, 
That  this  is  not  a  representation  at  all  of  the  opinions  maintained 
by  the  Dissenters,  but  of  the  consequences  tacked  to  them  by 
their  adversaries  ?  Does  he  not  know,  that  they  detest  and  abhor 
these  positions  as  much  as  he  does,  that  they  refuse  these  to  be 
consequences  of  them  ?  Is  it  then  candid  to  offer,  that  as  their 
opinions,  which  they  abhor,  and  which  they  will  not  allow  to  follow 
upon  their  opinion  ?  Again,  2.  Doth  not  this  gentleman  know  that 
the  principles  to  which  he  has  tacked  these  consequences,  are  the 
very  doctrines  taught  in  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England^ 
unanimously  maintained  by  all  the  great  men  of  that  church,  till 
Bishop  Laud's  day ;  which  were  preached  by  them  in  the  pulpit, 
taught  in  the  schools,  and  upon  all  occasions  avouched  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and,  as  such,  to  this  very  day 
are  owned  by  no  inconsiderable  number  of  that  church  ?  With 
what  justice  then,  or  ingenuity,  can  he  call  this  the  doctrine  of  the 
Dissenters  ?  H.  From  whom  does  he  expect  credit  to  this  disin- 
genuous account  of  the  Dissenter's  opinion  ?  Such  as  know  them, 
will  believe  nothing  upon  the  reading  of  this  passage;  but  that 
the  writer  either  understood  not  the  opinions  he  undertook  to  re- 
present, or  that  against  his  light,  he  misrepresented  them,  and  so  is 
never  to  be  credited  again,  without  good  proof,  in  any  thing  he 
says  of  them.  4.  Was  it  the  author's  design,  to  gain  a  proselyte 
to  the  opposite  opinions  ?  This  I  believe  it  was.  But  this  is  the 
most  unlucky  way  of  management  in  the  world ;  for  if  his  disciple 
is  a  man  of  sense,  he  will  be  shy  of  believing  that  such  monstrous 
opinions  can  be  received  by  a  body  of  men,  among  whom,  there 
must  be  owned  by  their  worst  enemies,  to  be  not  a  few  learned  and 
sober.  And  if  he  find  himself  abused,  upon  search,  may  he  not 
be  tempted,  not  only  to  reject  this  account,  but  all  that  he  receiv- 
ed upon  the  same  authority  ?  When  persons  of  sense,  who  have 
been  abused,  are  undeceived,  they  are  wont  ever  after  to  incline  to 
favorable  thoughts  of  the  persons  and  principles  they  were  pre- 
judiced against ;  and  to  suspect  that  cause  of  weakness,  which  can- 
not be  supported,  but  by  such  mean  and  unmanly  shifts,  as  this  of 
representing  the  opposite  opinion.  5.  If  the  adverse  party  shall 
take  the  same  course,  what  a  fine  work  shall  we  have  ?  And  to  speak 
modestly,  they  want  not  a  colourable  pretence  for  a  retortion. — 
But  who  shall  be  the  gainers  ?  Neither  of  the  contending  parties 
surely  :  For  men  will  never  be  beaten  frorn^  their  opinions  by  ca- 
lumnies that  they  know  to  be  unjust.  None  will  gain,  save  they, 
who  are  lying  at  the  catch,  for  pretences  to  countenance  them  in 
the  rejection  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  none  of  my  business 
to  debate  this  controversy  with  this  author. 

If  he  has  any  thing  new  to  advance  upon  these  heads,  let  him  ad- 
vance it,  he  will  find  antRSionists  in  the  Church  of  England,  able 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      305 

perhaps  to  cope  with  him,  though  the  Dissenters  should  fail.  This 
gentleman  had  managed  his  opposition  with  more  modesty  and  in- 
genuity, if  he  had  attentively  perused  the  learned  Bishop  of  Sa- 
rum's  discourse  on  the  1 7th  article  of  the  Church  of  England. — ■ 
But  I  hope  this  author,  upon  second  thoughts,  when  his  passion  is 
over,  will  be  ashamed  of  what  he  has  written. 

But  now  to  return  to  Herbert  and  the  Deists.  If  we  abstract 
from  these  two  abuses,  and  consider  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
as  represented  in  the  scriptures,  or  according  to  them,  there  is  no 
ground  to  charge  them  with  any  thing  frightful,  or  of  ill  conse- 
quence to  religion.  Yea,  I  dare  be  so  bold  as  to  say.  That  if  prac- 
tical religion,  consisting  in  godliness,  righteousness  and  sobriety,  is 
any  where  to  be  found  in  the  world,  it  is  to  be  found  amongst  those, 
as  likely  as  any  where  else,  and  in  as  eminent  a  degree,  who  have 
been  trained  up  in  the  belief,  and  under  the  influence  of  those  very 
doctrines,  which  some,  and  particularly  Herbert,  would  persuade 
us  to  be  so  horrid,  as  to  frighten  men  at  once  out  of  their  wits  and 
religion.  If  it  be  said,  that  this  is  not  owing  to  the  influence  of 
these  principles.  1  answer,  This,  at  least,  proves  those  princi- 
ples not  inconsistent  with  practical  religion,  in  as  much  as  they, 
who  believe  them,  are  eminent  in  it ;  and,  if  we  enquire  of  them, 
what  has  influenced  their  walk,  they  are  ready  to  attest,  that  the 
belief  of  these  very  truths  has  had  the  principal  influence  upon 
that  effect ;  and  to  oflTer  a  rational  account  of  the  tendency  of  these 
doctrines  to  promote  practical  religion. 

Now  we  have  wiped  oflf  the  insinuated  reproach,  designed  by 
our  author,  against  the  Christian  religion.  Let  us  next  consider 
what  there  is  in  this  plea.  He  tells  us,  his  religion  consists  of 
incontroverted  articles,  and  so  will  frigthen  no  body.  But,  1.  this 
is  not  true  in  fact,  as  we  have  demonstrated  above.  His  articles 
have  been  controverted.  The  sufficiency  of  them  has  been  be- 
lieved by  very  few.  Again,  2.  Will  our  author  say,  That  nothing 
is  necessary,  to  religion,  which  is  controverted  ?  Will  the  Deists 
undertake  this  point  ?  If  so,  their  religion  is  lost,  as  is  evident 
from  what  has  been  demonstrated  above.  8.  This  no  more  proves 
our  author's  five  articles  to  be  a  sufficient  religion,  than  it  proves 
one  of  them  alone  to  be  such.  He  who  owns  no  more  in  religion, 
but  this  only,  there  is  a  God,  may  as  well  plead,  that  religion  re- 
tains only  what  is  incontrovertible.  But  the  Deists  will  say,  there 
are  other  points  necessary.  Well  does  not  this  give  me  an  answer 
to  their  argument,  when  I  say,  there  are  other  points  necessary 
besides  their  five  articles.  4.  Whereas  he  would  persuade  us,  that 
no  man  will  scruple  his  religion  :  Is  not  this  enough  to  make  any 
reasonable  man  shy  of  admitting  it,  that  its  author  and  inventor 
dare  not  say  positively,  that  it  is  sufficient  to  answer  the  purpose, 
for  which  it  is  designed,  and  that  others  undertake  to  demonstrate, 

39 


300  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

that  if  it  is  Inislcil  to,  it  will  prove  a  soul-ruining  cheat  ?  luaworJ, 
it  is  not  worth  the  Avhile  to  calculate  a  religion  for  those,  who  wilJ 
atlmit  nothing  in  religion,  but  wliat  is  incontroverted  :  for,  in  short, 
they  are  for  no  rcU2;ion.  And  1  think  we  have  in  particular  evin- 
ced, that  our  author's  five  articles  will  be  too  hard  in  digestion  for 
such  delicate  stomachs. 

4.  Our  author  tells  us,  that  he  embraced  this  catholic  religion. 
Quod  concordicE  commimis  substrudionem  aged,  ^r.^  That  is, 
in  short,  let  all  the  world  agree  to  the  sufficiency  of  our  author's 
five  article?,  and  leave  all  other  things  to  be  rejected  or  received  as 
trifles,  not  necessary  to  be  disputed  about,  and  then  there  is  an  end 
of  all  the  contests,  then  there  is  a  foundation  laid  for  everlasting 
peace,  and  the  golden  age  will  be  retrieved,  Jam  redit  et  virgo 
redevnf,  Sahiruia  regna.-f 

This  trifle  deserves  rather  pity  than  an  answer.  What!  will  all 
the  world  agree  that  this  religion  is  sufficient,  while  its  inventor  durst 
r.ot  say  so  ? 

5.  He  embraced  it,  "Quod atithoritalem  majtstaleniq;  induhiam 
"  religioniy  et  hierarch'm  hide poUtlcEqiie  conciliat"  Src.  That  is, 
"  because  it  conciliates  respect  to  religion,  to  the  ecclesiastical  hie- 
"  rarchy,  and  civil  government."  Religion  will  be  respected,  when 
it  requires  nothing  but  what  is  necessary.  Church  and  state  will 
be  respected  when  it  punishes  nothing  but  transgressions  against 
incontroverted  articles. 

But  is  not  this  to  trifle  with  a  witness?  The  weakness  of  this 
plea  is  so  obvious,  that  I  may  well  spare  my  pains  in  exposing  it. 
AVill  it  maintain  the  dignity  of  religion  to  confine  it  to  a  number 
of  articles,  which  for  any  thing  we  know,  or  the  Deists  know,  may 
cheat  us  of  our  reward  in  the  end,  since  they  cannot  positively 
assiu-e  us  of  its  sufficiency,  and  we  are  positively  sure  it  is  not 
sufficient  ?  Will  it  maintain  the  honor  of  church  officers,  to  ad- 
mit a  religion,  which  subverts  the  very  foundation  of  all  respect  to 
them,  vis.  The  divine  institution  of  their  order?  As  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  it  to  the  civil  government,  the  Deists  may  oflTer  it  to 
the  consideration  of  the  next  parliament,  and  they  will  consider 
whether  it  is  proper  to  conciliate  respect  to  the  civil  government. 

6.  Our  author  embraced  his  religion,  Quod  adeo  non  moliat  re- 
ligioneiu,  ut  ejus  severitatis  siinndum  addat.  That  is,  "  It  is  so 
"  far  from  flivouring  liberty  in  sin,  that  it  urges  harder  to  virtue, 
"  (severe  virtue)  than  revealed  religion."  There  is  no  hope  of 
pardon  here  upon  the  satisfaction  of  another.  Men  must  work  for 
their  life,  and  when  they  fail,  they  must  satisfy  by  their  repent- 
ance. 


"  Because  it  lays  a  foundation  for  common  concord." 
"  'jSow  Astra  returns,  tlie  reign  of  Saturn  returns." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     ;i07 

Well,  but  do  they,  who  teach  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  ex- 
clude repentance  ?  And  if  they  make  both  satisfaction  and  repent- 
ance absolutely  necessary,  though  each  in  its  own  order  and  place, 
to  forgiveness,  methinks  they  will  yet  have  the  advantage  in  point 
of  severity.  Again,  but  what  if  repentance  will  not  satisfy  ?  If 
this  is  so,  and  our  author  seclude  all  other  satisfaction,  will  not  his 
religion  lead  men  rather  to  despair   than  to  virtue. 

7.  Our  author's  last  inducement  was,  Qiiod  sacrariim  lUerarum 
fhi'i  ultimo  intentioniq  qitadret,  &.c.  That  is,  "  because  this  cath- 
'' olic  religion  ansivers  the  ultimate  design  of  the  scriptures.  All 
"  the  doctrines  taught  there  level  at  the  establishment  of  these  five 
"catholic  verities,  as  we  have  often  hinted;  there  is  neither  sa- 
"  crament,  rite  or  ceremony,  there  enjoined,  but  what  aims  (or 
*■'  seems  to  aim)  at  the  establishment  of  tliese  five  articles.'* 

8.  But  is  not  this  a  notable  jest.  Our  author  would  persuade 
us,  That  his  religion  answers  the  great  end  of  the  scrip- 
tures, better  than  religion,  which  the  scriptures  themselves 
teach.  If  our  author  says  not  this,  he  says  nothing.  If  the  end 
of  the  scriptures  is  not  good,  it  is  not  for  the  honor  of  our  au- 
thor's religion  that  it  agrees  with  it:  If  it  is  good,  and  the  religion 
taught  in  the  scriptures  themselves,  answer  their  own  design  best, 
why  then,  I  Avould  chuse  that  religion,  and  leave  our  author  to  en- 
joy his  own  :  If  he  says,  his,  answers  it  better,  then  I  would  desire- 
to  know  where  the  compliment  lies,  that  he  designed  to  tlie  scrip- 
tures. But  I  desire  to  know  further  of  the  Deists,  Whether  do 
the  scriptures  teach  any  tiling  besides  these  articles,  to  be  neces- 
sary ?  Where  do  the  scriptures  tell  that  these  are  sufficient  ?  Are 
divine  institutions,  sacraments,  &c.  necessary  toward  the  compas- 
sing of  the  ends  of  religion  ?  If  they  are  not,  how  does  it  commend 
our  author's  rehgion,  that  it  quadrates  with  the  design  of  these  in- 
stitutions ?  If  they  are  necessary  and  useful,  this  catholic  religion 
is  at  a  loss  that  wants  them.  I  am  sensible  our  author  has  caution- 
ed against  this,  when  he  tells  us,  That  they  either  do  or  seem  to 
aim  at  this.  I  see  that  old  birds  are  not  caught  with  chaff.  Now  i 
have  found  it.  This  catholic  religion,  Avill  really  serve  the  pur- 
pose, that  revealed  truths  and  institutions  do  only  seem  to  aim  at. 
But  after  all,  this  is  but  sai/  and  not  irroof.  And  I  will  undertake 
to  shew  against  all  the  Deists  under  heaven,  that  the  confinement 
of  religion  to  these  fiv^e  articcles,  as  taught  by  the  light  of  nature, 
is  not  only  not  agreeable  to  the  principal  design  of  the  scriptures, 
but  inconsistent  with  it. 

Thus  I  have  considered  the  inducements  which  led  Herbert  to 
embrace  this  catholic  religion,  and  found  them  wanting.  And 
1  must  say,  if  this  noble  author  had  not  been  straitened  by  a  bad 
cause,  that  is  not  capable  of  a  rational  defence,  liis  learning,  which 
is  very  considerable,  could  not  but  have  afforded  liim  better 
pleas.     Charles  Blount,  in  the  do^e  of  his  Religio  LaicI,  tells  rs 


308  AN  INQITIRY  INTO  THE 

It  was  for  the  same  reasons  he  embraced  Deism,  and  copies  after 
Herbert,  with  some  little  variations.  What  he  has,  that  our  author 
has  taken  notice  of  in  this  place,  will  occur  in  the  next  chapter, 
%vhere  they  are  again  repeated  under  another  form.  Men  that 
have  bid  little  to  say  have  need  to  husband  it  well,  and  make  all  the 
improvement  of  it  that  they  can. 


CHAP.    XX. 

Wherein  the  Queries  offered  by  Herbert  and  Blount,  for  proving 
the  sufficiency  of  their  five  Articles  are  examined. 

THE  learned  Herbert  in  an  appendix  to  his  Religio  Laid, 
moves  some  objections  against  himself,  but  fearing  after  he  has  said 
all  he  can,  some  may  remain  unsatisfied  still,  he  betakes  himself  to 
another  course,  and  essays  to  dispute  his  opposers  into  a  compli- 
ance with  his  sentiments  by  Queries.  Of  this  sort  he  proposes 
several.  Charles  Blount  concludes  his  Religio  Laid  in  the  same 
method,  with  this  diflference,  that  he  has  added  other  seven  que- 
ries, making  in  all  fourteen,  and  prefixed  this  title,  Queries  proving 
the  validity  of  the  Jive  Articles. 

The  arguments  couched  in  these  queries,  in  so  far  as  they  tend 
to  prove  the  suflSciency  of  this  catholic  religion,  are  not  new,  but 
materially  the  same,  which  we  have  formerly  considered.  The 
method  is  indeed  different,  more  subtle,  and  better  suited  to  their 
great  design.  Direct  proofs  are  less  deceiving,  and  their  weak- 
ness is  more  easy  discoverable  by  vulgar  capacities.  Queries  con- 
ceal the  weakness  of  arguments,  entangle,  perplex  and  amuse  less 
attentive  minds  ;  and  by  them,  the  subtle  asserters  of  a  bad  cause 
ease  themselves  of  the  trouble  of  proving  their  ill  grounded  as- 
sertions, (which  yet,  by  all  rules  of  disputing,  belongs  to  them  on- 
ly) and  turn  it  over  upon  the  defender.  This  is  enough  as  to  the 
method,  to  let  us  see  how  suitable  it  was  to  their  purpose. 

The  Queries  proposed  by  Blount  are  the  same  with  Herbert's, 
and  he  adds  others  which  Herbert  wants.  Wherefore  we  shall 
consider  them  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Blount.  But  whereas  some  of 
them  are  to  more  advantage  urged  by  Herbert,  we  shall  offer  these 
in  Herbert's  words,  that  we  may  overlook  nothing,  which  has  the 
least  appearance  of  force  in  this  cause. 

Query  L  "  Whether  there  can  be  any  other  true  God,  or  whe- 
"  ther  any  other  can  justly  be  called  optimus  maximus,  the 
"  greatest  and  best  God,  and  common  father  of  mankind,  save  He 
"  who  exercises  universal  providence,  and  looks  so  far  to  the  good 
''  of  all  men,  as  to  provide  them  in  common  and  sufficient  or  cftec' 


PHINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        809 

"  tual  means  for  obtaining  the  state  of  eternal  happiness  after  this 
"  life,  whereof  he  has  implanted  a  desire  in  their  minds  ?  If  the 
"  laity  or  vulgar  worship  any  other  God,  who  does  not  exercise 
"  this  universal  providence,  are  they  not  guilty  of  false  worship, 
*'  or  idolatry  ?  And  if  any  one  deny  this  common  providence,  is 
"  he  not  guilty  of  treason  against  the  divine  Majesty,  and  of  a 
"  contempt  of  his  goodness,  yea,  and  of  Atheism  itself  ?"  Thus 
Herbert.*  Blount  proposes  the  same  query,  but  more  shortly, 
thus,  "  Whether  there  be  any  true  God,  but  he  that  useth  uni- 
"  versal  providence  concerning  the  means  of  coming  to  him."f 

The  design  of  this  query  is  to  prove  the  necessity  of  a  catho- 
lic religion,  or  a  sufficient  religion  common  to  all  mankind,  and  to 
fix  the  black  note  of  atheism  upon  all  who  deny  it.  The  argu- 
ment whereby  this  is  evinced  is  the  very  same,  which  we  have 
examined  above,  as  the  Deists'  first  and  great  argument.  What  is 
added  concerning  universal  Providence,  we  did  consider  in  our 
answer  to  Herbert's  first  inducement  to  Deism.  And  so  we  might 
entirely  pass  this  query  as  answered  already,  were  it  not  for  the 
seeming  advantage  given  to  it  by  this  new  dress,  wherein  it  ap- 
pears. 

This  query  has  a  direct  tendency  to  drive  men  into  Atheism, 
and  tempt  them  to  lay  aside  all  worship  through  fear  of  falling  into 
idolatry.  It  is  in  itself  self-evident,  that  if  God  has  given  all 
mankind,  or  to  every  man,  means  sufficient  and  effectual  to  lead 
them  to  eternal  happiness,  they  must  know  of  it,  or,  at  least,  there 
must  be  easy  access  for  them  to  know  it.  With  what  propriety 
of  speech  can  it  be  said.  That  the  means  leading  to  eternal  hap- 
piness, are  given  to  every  man  to  be  by  him  used  for  that  end,  if 
they  know  them  not,  or,  at  least,  if  the  knowledge  of  them  be  not 
easily  accessible  to  all,  who  will  apply  themselves  to  an  inquiry 
after  them  ?  Nor  is  it  less  evident,  That  the  suitableness,  effica- 
cy and  sufficiency  of  these  means,  for  reaching  this  end,  must  be 
sufficiently  intimated  to  them.  If  it  is  not  so,  how  can  men  ra- 
tionally be  obliged  to  use  means  which  they  do  not  know  to  be- 
proper  for  compassing  the  end  ?  With  what  courage  or  confidence 
can  any  rational  man,  with  great  application,  over  many  difficul- 
ties, use,  and  all  his  life  continue  in  the  use  of  means,  concerning 
which  he  has  no  assurance,  that  they  will  put  him  in  possession  of 
the  end  ?  After  all  this  pains  he  may  miss  the  end  he  had  in 
view.  How  can  any  reasonable  soul  please  itself  in  such  a  coui*se  ? 
Can  it  be  reasonably  thought  worthy  of  the  wisdom  and  goodness 
of  Go^J,  to  give  man  the  means  of  attaining  eternal  happiness,  and 
means  sufficient,  and  yet  leave  men  in  the  dark  as  to  the  know- 
ledge of  this.  That  they  are  designed  for,  and  sufficient  to  reach 

•  Herbert's  Relig-.  Laici,  Appendix,  pag.  1,  2. 
t  Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag.  90. 


310  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

the  end  for  which  they  were  given  ?  What  can  rationally  induct; 
men  in  this  case,  to  give  God  the  praise  of  his  goodness,  in  afford- 
ing them  these  means,  or  to  use  them  for  that  end,  for  which  they 
were  given,  if  this  is  hid  from  them  ?  It  is  then  evident,  That,  if 
God  has  afforded  all  men  sufficient  means  of  reaching  eternal  hap- 
piness, they  must  know  this,  or,  at  least,  have  easy  access  to  know 
these  means,  what  they  are,  and  that  they  are  designed  to,  proper 
for,  and  will  prove  effectual  to  this  end.  And  consequently,  if 
men  find  not  such  means,  after  search,  they  have  evidently  reason 
to  conclude,  that  God  has  left  them  without  them,  at  least,  that 
they  want  them  in  their  present  circumstances ;  since  after  all 
their  inquiries  they  cannot  find  them,  nor  can  they  discover  that 
any  means,  they  know  of,  will  be  effectual  to  reach  this  end. 

This  is  evidently  the  condition  of  man  at  present,  left  to  the 
mere  light  of  nature.  We  have  proved  just  now.  That  if  God 
had  given  these  sufficient  means,  every  man  must,  at  least,  upon 
application,  have  had  access  to  know  them,  and  to  know  that  they 
are  sufficient. 

But,  upon  application,  they  find  no  such  matter,  and  therefore 
have  reason  to  suspect,  that  God  has  not  given  them  these  means, 
if  not  positively  to  conclude  that  they  are  without  them.  Her- 
bert himself  glories  that  he  was  the  first  who  found  out  what  these 
means  were.  They  had  escaped  the  knowledge  and  industry  of 
the  most  learned  and  diligent  before  his  time.  And  if  so,  certainly 
the  vulgar  behoved  to  be  at  a  loss  about  them.  When  he  has  1 
found  them,  he  dares  not  be  positive  about  their  sufficiency : "  Qnmn 
"  etiam  oh  causam,  neqiie  ea  snfficere  (ad  salutem,  viz.  CEternam)\ 
'^  profemis  dixerim"  says  he.*  .  Yea,  he  more  than  insinuates, 
that  we  cannot  come  to  be  positively  assured  of  their  sufficiency, 
and  so  must  remain  in  the  dark,  since  the  determination  of  this  de- 
pends upon  the  sentiments  of  God,  which  are  known  to  none,  as 
lie  says.  Now  when  a  man  so  learned,  so  diligent,  and  so  evident- 
ly  prepossessed  with  a  strong  inclination  to  favor  any  means  that ' 
had  a  shew  of  sufficiency,  found  so  much  difficulty  to  hit  upon  ' 
any  such,  and  did  so  evidently  hesitate  about  the  sufficiency  of 
these  he  had  found ;  must  not  the  laity,  for  whoni,  upon  all  occa-  i 
sions,  he  pretends  so  much  concern,  liesitate  more  ?  Yea,  have  ! 
they  not  reason  evidently  to  conclude,  that  there  are  no  such' 
means  provided  for  them  ? 

But  Herbert  here  teaches  them,  that  none  is  to  be  acknowledg- 
ed as  the  true  God,  nor  worshipped  as  such,  who  has  not  provided 
every  man,  in  effectual  and  sufficient  means  for  attaining  eternal 
happiness.     Well  may  the  layman  say,  "I  neither  know,  nor  can  ' 
"■  I  ever  be  satisfied,  that  I  have  such  means;  yea,  I  have   the 


Iloi-bcrt  lie  Rcl.  Gent.  pag.  217. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      3U 

■  greatest  reason  to  think  that  I  want  them  ;  if  the  good  Goil  had 
u;iven  them,  he  wouhl  not  have  mocked  rae,  by  concealing  them, 
and  so  prechiding  me  from  the  use  of  them  ;  he  would  have 
•'  poljited  me  to  them,  and  intimated  their  sufficiency,  so  as  to 
"  make  it  knowable  to  me,  upon  application,  without  which  he 
"  could  never  expect  that  I  should  use  them  :  I  have  tlierefore 
"  reason  to  conclude  myself  destitute  of  them,  and  so  I  will  Avor- 
"  ship  no  God,  since  there  is  none  that  has  provided  me  in  the 
"  means  necessary  to  eternal  happiness  :  For  if  I  should,  1  would 
"  be  guilty  of  worshipping  one,  who  is  an  idol,  and  not  the  true 
"  God."  Here  we  see  where  this  gentleman's. principles  must  in- 
evitably lead  the  poor  man,  either  to  direct  Atheism,  or  to  wor- 
sliip  one,  whom  he  has  reason  vehemently  to  suspect  to  be  merely 
an  idol,  and  not  the  true  God. 

Having  thus  discovered  the  dangerous  tendency  of  this  query, 
I  shall  now  give  a  direct  answer  to  it.  And  to  it  I  say,  That  the 
God,  who  makes  man,  implants  in  his  child's  mind  a  desire  of  eter- 
nal felicity,  intimates  to  him  that  he  is  made  for  this  end,  obliges 
him  in  duty  to  pursue  this  end,  under  a  penalty  in  case  he  fail  of 
it,  and  yet  denies  or  leaves  his  child  without  the  means  that  are 
absolutely  necessary  for  compassing  it,  antecedently  to  any  fault 
upon  the  child's  part,  will  scarcely  obtain  the  titles  of  optimiis 
maximus,  great  and  good,  or  of  a  common  Father. 

But  the  God  who  made  man  perfect,  in  his  original  state,  and 
put  him  in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  means  that  were  necessary 
to  obtain  that  end,  whatever  it  was,  for  which  he  was  made,  and 
which  he  was  in  duty  obliged  to  pursue,  loses  not  his  interest  in, 
and  unquestionable  right  to  the  title  of  optunus  maximiis,  great 
and  good  ;  nor  does  he  cease  to  be  a  common  Father,  and  to  act 
the  part  of  such  an  one,  if,  when  his  children  contrary  to  their 
duty,  have  rebelled  against  him,  by  their  own  fault  dropped  the 
knowledge  of  the  end,  for  which  they  were  made,  lost  the  knov, - 
ledge  of  the  means,  whereby  it  is  to  be  obtained,  put  themselve^v 
out  of  a  capacity  of  using  the  means,  or  reaching  the  end  ;  if,  I 
say,  in  this  case,  he  leaves  them  to  smart  under  the  effects  of  their 
own  sin,  and  treats  them  no  more  as  children,  but  as  rebels,  who 
can  blame  him  ?  Does  he  not  act  every  way  as  it  becomes  one, 
who  by  the  best  of  titles  is  not  merely  a  father,  but  the  sovereign 
ruler  and  governor  of  all  his  creatures,  to  whom  of  right  it  belongs 
to  render  a  just  recompcnce  of  reward  to  every  transgressor  ? 

Now,  this  is  the  case,  as  we  have  already  proven.  If  the  Deists 
will  make  their  argument  conclusive,  they  must  prove  that  this  is 
not  .the  case  with  man.  And  when  we  see  this  done,  we  shall  then 
know  what  to  say.  Till  then  we  are  not  nnich  concerned  with  their 
finery.  If  they  say.  How  can  this  be  ?  Can  men  by  the  light  of' 
nature  know  how  this  came  to  pass  ?  I  answrr,   th;it  it  is  not  the 


312  AN  maUIRY  INTO  THE 

question,  How  it  came  to  be  so  ?  But  whether,  in  fact,  it  be  so  ? 
That  it  really  is  thus,  is  before  proven.  The  Heathens  have  con- 
fessed it.  And  though  we  should  never  come  to  be  satisfied,  how 
it  came  about,  yet  that  it  really  is  so,  is  enough  to  acquit  God. 

Nor  is  God's  universal  Providence  hereby  everted,  he  still 
governs  all  mankind  suitably  to  their  condition.  He  rules  those, 
■whom  of  his  sovereign  and  undeserved  grace,  he  has  seen  meet  to 
deal  with,  in  order  to  return  to  his  family,  in  a  way  of  infinite 
mercy  and  grace.  He  governs  the  rest  of  the  world,  whom  in  his 
sovereign  and  adorable  justice  and  wisdom,  he  hath  left  to  lie  un- 
der the  dismal  consequences  of  their  own  sin,  in  a  way  becoming 
their  state.  He  provides  them  in  all  things,  that  do  necessarily 
belong  to  the  ends,  for  which  they  are  spared.  Further,  he  leaves 
himself  not  without  a  7vitness  as  to  his  goodness,  in  that  he  does 
good,  gives  them  rain  from  heaven,  and  fruitful  seasons,  filling 
their  hearts  'with  food  and  gladness.  Which  is  suiBcient  to  shew 
his  superabundant  goodness,  that  reaches  even  to  the  unthankful 
and  evil,  and  gives  them  ground  to  conclude.  That  their  want  of 
what  is  further  necessary,  flows  not  from  any  defect  of  goodness 
on  his  part ;  but  from  their  own  sins,  of  many  of  which  their  own 
consciences  do  admonish  them.  If  God  vouchsafes  the  means  of 
recovery  to  any,  they  have  reason  to  be  thankful  to  sovereign 
grace.  If  God  gives  not,  what  he  may  justly  refuse,  who  can  in 
justice  complain  of  him  ?  They  must  leave  their  complaint  upon 
themselves,  and  acquit  God.  And  while  man  is  continued  in  be- 
ing, it  will  remain  his  indespensible  duty  to  worship  this  God,  who 
made  him,  spares  him,  notwithstanding  of  his  sins,  for  a  time, 
punishes  him  less  than  his  iniquities  deserve,  and  confers  many 
other  undeserved  favours  on  him.  Nor  is  he  guilty  of  worship- 
ping an  idol  in  doing  so. 

Thus  we  have  answered  this  query  :  And  I  might  now  propose 
to  the  Deists  a  counter  query,  "  Whether  they  who  make  that 
necessary  to  the  support  of  the  universal  providence  of  God,  his 
goodness,  and  consequently  his  being,  of  which  no  man  can  be 
sure  that  it  really  is,  which  all  men  have  reason  to  believe  is  not, 
and  which  most  men,  who  have  made  it  their  business  to  consider 
the  case  seriously,  do  firmly  believe  not  to  be  in  being,  may  not 
reasonably  be  suspected  to  design  the  overthrow  of  these  attri- 
butes of  God,  and  consequently  of  his  very  being  ?"  Thus  Vani- 
nus  endeavored  to  establish  Atheism :  he  ascribes  such  attributes 
to  God,  and  endeavored  to  fix  such  notions  of  his  perfections,  as 
could  not  be  admitted,  without  the  overthrow  of  other  perfections, 
unquestionably  belonging  to  him,  or  owned  in  any  consistency 
with  reason  and  experience.  For  he  well  knew,  that  if  once  hej 
could  bring  men  to  believe  God  to  be  such  an  one,  if  he  was,  theyl 
would  be  brought  under  a  necessity  of  denying,  that  there  waaj 
any  God. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      313 

Query  11.  "  Whether  these  means  appear  universally  other- 
"  wise,  than  in  the  foresaid  five  catholic  articles  ?* 

These  gentlemen  think  tliey  have,  by  their  first  query,  suffi- 
ciently proved,  that  there  must  be  a  catholic  religion  :  Now  they 
will  prove  theirs  to  be  it.  But  I  have  undermined  the  foundation, 
and  so  the  superstructure  falls.  I  have  evinced,  that  there  is  no 
such  sufficient  catholic  religion,  by  reason  and  experience.  I  have 
proved  that  the  pretence  of  its  being  necessary  to  support  the  no- 
tion of  God's  providence  and  goodness,  can  never  possibly  per- 
suade any  considerate  man,  to  believe  against  his  reason  and  ex- 
perience, against  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  and  what  he  feels  within 
himself,  that  he  really  is  in  possession  of  a  sufficient  religion,  with- 
out revelation  ;  and  consequently  that  the  urging  of  this  pretence 
can  serve  for  nothing,  if  not  to  make  men  question  the  goodness 
and  providence  of  God,  and  so  his  very  being,  to  the  overthrow  of 
all  worship  and  religion.  I  have  moreover  made  it  appear,  that 
these  five  articles  are  not  catholic,  and  though  they  were  so,  yet 
are  not  sufficient. 

Query  HI.  "  Whether  any  thing  can  be  added  to  these  five 
^*  articles  or  principles,  that  may  tend  to  make  a  man  more  honest, 
"  virtuous,  or  a  better  man  ?"  So  Blount.f  To  this  query  Her- 
bert adjects  a  clause,  viz.  "  Provided  these  articles  be  well  ex- 
"  plained  in  their  full  latitude.  J  And  is  not  tliis  the  principal  end 
of  religion  ? 

By  the  foregoing  queries  the  Deists  think  they  have  proved 
the  necessity  of  a  catholic  religion  ;  and  that  their  five  articles  is 
the  catholic  religion.  By  this  query  they  pretend  to  prove  their 
religion  sufficient. 

To  this  purpose  they  tell  us.  That  their  five  articles  are  suffi- 
cient to  make  a  man  virtuous,  honest  and  good  ;  that  this  is  the 
principal  end  of  religion  ;  and  that  nothing  can  be  added  to  them, 
which  can  be  any  way  helpful  to  this  end.  If  by  making  a  man 
virtuous,  honest  and  good,  they  mean  no  more,  than  the  Heathens 
meant  by  these  words,  who  took  them  to  intend  no  more,  but  an 
abstinence  from  the  more  gross  outward  acts  of  vice,  contrary  to 
the  light  of  nature,  with  some  regard  in  their  dealings  among  men, 
to  the  common  and  known  rules  of  righteousness,  and  usefulness  : 
If,  I  say,  tliis  is  their  meaning,  which  I  conceive  it  must  be,  then 
I  deny  that  this  is  the  principal  end  of  religion.  No  man  that  un- 
deistands  what  religion  means,  will  say  it.  The  Heathens  were 
influenced  to  this  by  other  motives,  than  any  thing  of  regard  to 
the  authority  of  the  One  true  God.  Their  Ethicks,  which  en- 
joined this  goodness,  virtue  and  honesty,  pressed  it  by  considera- 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laici.  pag.  90.    Hcib.  Rel.  Laici.  Appendix, 
t  Ibid.  pa^.  91,  i(  Herb.  Jbid. 

40 


ai4  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

tions  of  a  quite  different  nature.  Of  God,  his  legislature,  his  laws, 
as  such,  they  took  httle  or  no  notice,  as  observed  from  Mr. 
Locke  before  ;  and  therefore,  whatever  usefulness  among  men 
there  was  to  be  found  in  their  virtues,  they  had  nothing  of  religion, 
properly  so  called,  in  them. 

But  if  by  making  a  man  honest,  virtuous  and  good,  they  mean 
the  making  of  him  inwardly  holy,  and  engaging  him  in  the  whole 
of  his  deportment,  in  bothoutward  and  inward  acts,  to  carry  as 
becomes  him,  toward  God,  his  neighbor  and  himself,  with  a  due 
eye  to  the  glory  of  God  as  his  end,  and  a  just  regard  to  the  au- 
thority of  God,  as  the  formal  reason  of  this  performMice  of  duty 
in  outward  and  inward  acts  :  If,  I  say,  they  take  their  words  in 
this  sense,  I  do  own  this  to  be  one  of  the  principal  ends  of  reli- 
gion. But  then  I  deny  that  ever  any  man,  by  their  five  articles, 
as  taught  by  the  light  of  nature,  or  by  any  other  of  the  like  kind, 
known  only  by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  was  in  this  sense,  since  the 
entrance  of  sin,  made  virtuous  and  good.  Nay,  the  moral  Hea- 
thens were  not  led  to  that  shadow  of  virtue  and  goodness,  which 
they  had  in  the  sense  beforementioned,  from  any  regard  to  these 
five  articles,  as  they  are  articles  of  religion  ;  that  is,  as  they  are 
principles  directive  as  to  the  duty,  which  man  owes  to  the  One  on- 
ly True  and  Supreme  Being. 

And  taking  virtue,  goodness,  and  honesty  in  this  last  sense, 
which  is  that  alone  wherein  we  are  concerned,  I  have  above  proven 
the  light  of  nature,  and  particularly  these  five  articles,  as  known 
by  it,  utterly  insufficient  to  make  any  man  virtuous,  honest  and 
good.  And  have  demonstrated  not  one,  but  immy  things  besides 
what  is  contained  in  these  five  articles,  however  explained  to  the 
utmost  advantage  that  can  be  done  by  mere  unassisted  reason,  to 
be  absolutely/  necessary  to  the  ends  of  religion. 

Nor  w  ill  what  Herbert  has  adjected  mend  the  matter,  viz.  That 
his  articles  must  be  well  explained  in  their  full  latitude.  These 
words,  if  they  have  any  sense,  it  is  this,  "  It  is  not  enough  to  be- 
lieve and  receive  our  articles,  as  in  general  proposed,  this  will  make 
no  man  good.  He  must  not  only,  for  instance,  agree  to  it,  that 
there  is  one  Supreme  God,  and  that  he  is  to  be  worshipped  by  a 
virtuous  life,  but  he  must  be  acquainted  with  all  the  attributes  of 
this  God,  necessary  to  be  known,  in  order  to  the  direction  of  his 
practice,  and  he  must  understand  and  be  fixed  as  to  the  nature, 
measure  and  all  other  necessary  concerns  of  these  virtues  that  be- 
long to  this  duty."  This  is  undeniably  the  meaning  of  this  ex- 
pression, and  this  inevitably  overthrows  all  that  our  author  has  been 
building.  Were  these  five  articles,  in  this  latitude,  universally 
agreed  to  ?  Our  author  knew  to  the  contrary.  If  any  man  should 
assert  it,  it  were  enough  to  make  him  be  hissed  off  the  stage,  as 
either  brutishly  ignorant  of  the  world,  or  impudently  disingenuous. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      315 

Well  then,  our  catholic  religion  is  lost.  Again,  since  the  explica- 
tions belong  as  much  to  our  author's  religion  as  the  articles  them- 
selves, (for  without  them  he  confesses  the  articles  not  sufficient) 
how  shall  the  poor  layman  ever  be  satisfied  about  them  ?  Have 
there  not  been  as  many,  and  as  intricate  disputes  about  them,  as 
about  the  articles  of  revealed  religion  ?  Where  is  now  the  boasted 
agreement  ?  Where  is  the  uncontroverted  religion  ?  What  attri- 
bute of  God  has  not  been  questioned,  disputed  and  denied  ?  Have 
not  his  creation  of  all  things,  his  Providence,  &c.  which  of  all 
others  have  the  most  remarkable  influence  upon  practice,  by  many 
been  denied  ?  Have  not  horrid  notions  of  them  been  advanced  by 
some  ?  What  will  now  become  of  men  of  squeamish  stomachs, 
that  can  admit  of  no  religion,  but  one  that  is  smooth,  and  has  no 
rugged  controversies  in  it  ?  Why,  poor  gentlemen,  they  must  part 
with  our  author's  religion,  and  so  be,  as  they  were  before,  men  of 
no  religion.  Upon  the  whole,  we  see  that  this  query,  designed 
to  prove  the  Deists'  religion  sufficient,  has  proved  it  a  chimera. 

QuerT/  IV.  "  Whether  any  things  that  are  added  to  these  five 
"  principles  from  the  doctrine  of  faith,  be  not  uncertain  in  their  ori- 
«  ginal  ?"  So  Blount.*     Herbert  to  this  adds,  «  That  though  God 
*'  be  true,  yet  the  laity  can   never   be   certain   about   revelation : 
"  For,  (says  he)  how  do  ye  know  that  God  spake  these  words  to 
"  the  prophets  ?  How  do  you  know  that  they  faithfully  repeated  or 
"  wrote  what  God  spoke  to  them,  and  no  more  ?  How  do  ye  know 
"  that  transcribers  have  performed  their  part  faithfully  ?  How  do  ye 
"  know  that  that  particular  revelation  made  to  a  particular  priest,  pro- 
"  phet  or  lawgiver,  concerns  not  only  all  other  priests  and  lawgivers, 
"  but  also  the  laity?  Especially,  how  shall  ye  know  this,  if  the  matter 
"  of  revelation  require  you  to  recede  from  reason  ?"f  And  here  we 
have  a  proof  of  the  fourth  reflection,  of  his  unfair  treatment  of  the 
Christian  revelation,  which  we  made  above.  Chap.  13.     For  either 
he  insinuates,  that  the  scriptures  teach  things  contrary  to  reason  ; 
and  if  so,   where   was  our   author's   ingenuity  when  he  called  it 
optima  religio,  and  upon  other  occasions  pretended  so  much  res- 
pect to  it  ?  Does  not  this  justify  our  charge  of  disingenuity  against 
him,  in  the  first  reflection  we  have  made,  in  the  place  now  referred 
to  ?  If  he  owns,  that  this  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Christian  religion, 
but  of  other  pretended  revelations  ;  then  he  justifies  our  fourth  re- 
fl,eclion,  wherein  we  charge  him  with  jumbling  revelations,  true  and 
false  together,  those  that  have,  at  least,  seemingly  fair  pretences,  and 
these  that  have  none;  and  deceitfully  charges  upon  all  in  cumulo,  the 
faults  peculiar  to  the  worst.     If  this  is  not  enough  to  persuade  you 
to  the  truth  of  his  protestation  abovementioned,  vis.  that  he  design- 
ed no  hurt  to  the   Christian  religioUj  he  has  an  observation,  with 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag.  91. 

t  Herb.  Rel.  Laici,  Appendix,  pag.  3.  ^ 


316  AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE 

which  he  concludes  this  query,  that  will  beat  the  persuasion  of  it 

into  your  brains,  or  else  of  somewhat  beside  ;  and  it  is  this,  in  his 

own  words,    "  I  think  it  worthy   of  the  layman's  observatioi,  that 

"  there  is  this  difference  betwixt  the  pretended  revelations  offered 

*'  to  us,  by  the  lawgivers,  and  those  offered  to  us  by  priests,  inter- 

"  preters  of  the  oracles  God,  of  (under  which  notion  he  takes  in  all 

"  prophets)  whether   they  gave  their  revelations  or  responses  for 

•'  hire,  or  merely  to  set  off  their  own   conceits  (sive  venules  sive 

"  nugivcndi ;)  that  the  revelations,  which  the  lawgivers  pretended 

"  they  had  from  heaven,  and  promulgated  as  such  did  usually  make 

"  the  people  more  just  and  sociable,  or   agree    better   together ; 

"  whereas  the  pretended  revelations  of  the  priest  and  prophets,  of 

*'  whatever  sort,  (or  in  his  own   words,  Oraculorum  interpretibus 

"  sive  venaUbus  sive   nngivendisj  did   usually  make   the    people 

"  more  unjust  or  impious, and  did  divide  them  among  themselves"^.'* 

Here  is  a  rare  observation,  worth  gold  to  the  layman.     He  may, 

with  more  safet}",  receive  and  use  the  laws  which  Lycurgus,  Solon, 

and  the  other  Heathen  lawgivers  pretended  they  had  from  heaven  ; 

and  I  would  add  Moses  and  his  writings,  but  that  I  fear  our  author 

has  cost  him,  because  he  set  up  for  an  interpreter  of  God's  mind, 

and,  upon  some  extraordinary  occasions,  acted  the  part  of  a  priest : 

Our  author,  T  say,  w  ouid  persuade  hiui,  that  he  may,  with  more  ad- 

va:itage,  read  these  writings,  than  those  of  the  prophets  and  apostles, 

or  any  other  of  the  sacred  writers,  who  were  not  lawgivers.     It  is 

true,  both  are  to  be  looked  upon  but  as  pretended  revelations,  and 

so  in  effect  cheats :  but  the  lawgivers  beguiled  the  people  to  their 

advantage ;  whereas  these  rogues  of  priests,  and  others  who  joined 

with  them,  offered  cheats  that  were  hurtful  to  justice  among  men, 

and  the  peace  of  society. 

If  any  say,  I  am  wresting  our  author's  words  and  that  certainly 
his  comparison  respects  oiilyt  he  Heathen  lawgivers,  and  the  Hea- 
then priests  ;  I  answer  If  this  is  the  meaning,  it  is  altogether  im- 
pertinent to  the  design  of  the  query,  which  avowedly  alms  at 
t  "is,  "  That  laymen,  living  among  us,  (for  I  do  not  believe  our  au- 
thor designed  to  send  his  book  to  the  Pagans)  can  never  be  sa- 
tisfied as  to  the  truth  of  any  particular  revelation,"  and  all  his  su- 
bordinate queries  do  directly  thrust  at  the  scriptures  ;  and  then  he 
closes  with  this  observation,  as  of  the  greatest  moment  to  the  de- 
sign of  the  query.  And  therefore  I  cannot  own,  that  I  have  done 
a:'y  injury  to  our  author,  in  the  interpretation  I  have  given  of  it ; 
but  I  have  spoke  his  meaning  more  plainly,  than  he  thought  con- 
venient to  do.  The  next  query  is  to  the  same  purpose,  and  there- 
fore we  sh;>ll  purpose  it,  and  answer  both. 

Qveiy  V.  "  Supposing  the  originals  true,  whether  yet  they  be 
"  not  uixertaln  in  their  explications  ;   so  that  unless  a  man  read 


Herb.  IJel.  Laici,  Appendix,  pag-.  3v 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      317 

«  all  authors,  speak  with  all  learned  men,  and  know  all  languages, 
«  it  be  not  impossible  to  come  to  a  clear  solution  of  all  doubts  ?'* 
Thus  Blount.*  Herbert,  in  his  fifth  query,  speaks  to  the  same 
purpose,  he  makes  a  huge  outcry  about  the  schisms  and  sects  that 
are  among  us,  and  tells  us  plainly,  that  if  we  will  adherie  stiffly  to 
revelation,  we  must  of  necessity  get  an  infallible  judge,  to  whose 
decisions  we  must  submit  in  all  things.  He  endeavours  to  prove 
that  the  scriptures  will  not  decide  the  controversy  ;  and  imperti- 
nently enough  labours  to  disprove  what  none  ever  asserted  ;  that 
miracles  wrought  by  the  writers  will  not  decide  the  dilTerences 
about  the  meaning  of  their  writings.  For  it  is  evident  this  query 
only  respects  the  meaning  of  the  revelation,  as  the  former  did  its 
original.  However,  I  know  who  will  thank  our  author  for  assert- 
ing the  necessity  of  a  living  infallible  judge.  If  any  think  I  have 
wronged  our  author  as  to  this,  let  them  inspect  his  book,  and  they 
will  find  I  have  done  him  justice.  But  for  the  satisfaction  of  those 
who  have  it  not,  I  shall  subjoin  his  own  express  words  :  he  informs 
the  layman,  that  he  can  never  be  satisfied  about  the  meaning  of 
this  revelation,  about  which  there  are  so  many  controversies,  un- 
less either  he  can  "  Linguas  cundas  ediscere,  scriptores  cundos 
"  celebriores  perlegere,  dodiores  etiam,  qui  non  scripserunt,  con- 
"  sulere  ;  aut  aliquis  saltern  controversiarmn  illarum  ex  consensu 
"  communi  summus  constitucrelnr  judex."-f  And  then  he  goes 
on  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  other  possible  way  of  deciding  these 
differences,  and  coming  to  the  meaning  of  revelation,  but  in  these 
two  ways  pointed  at  in  the  words  now  quoted.  The  first  is  ridi- 
culous, and  therefore  we  must  be  Deists  or  Papists. 

The  design  of  these  queries  is  obvious.  They  were  afraid  that 
their  arguments  might  prove  weak,  which  they  had  advanced  for 
the  sufficiency  of  their  catholic  religion;  and  now,  in  effect,  they 
tell  the  laity,  that  if  they  have  a  mind  to  have  a  religion  at  all,  they 
must  close  with  this  which  the  Deists  present  tliem.  And  though 
we  cannot  satisfy  you,  may  the  Deists  say,  in  all  points,  about  our 
catholic  religion,  yet  you  must  rest  satisfied  with  it :  for  you  can 
never  be  sure  about  revelation,  either  as  to  its  original  or  meaning. 
Men  brought  to  such  a  strait,  since  they  cannot  have  such  a  reli- 
gion as  they  would  wish,  must  take  such  as  they  can  get. 

These  queries  directly  attack  revelation  ;  and  so  belong  not  to 
our  subject.  The  learned  defenders  of  revealed  religion  have  con- 
sidered those  trifles,  and  repelled  the  force  of  them,  I  shall  only 
consider  them,  in  so  fiir  as  they  belong  to  our  subject,  and  offer 
the  few  following  animadversions  upon  them. 

•  Blount  Rcl.Laici,  ubi  supra,  pag-.  91. 

+  "  Learn  all  lang-uages,  read  over  all  the  most  celebrated  writers,  consul. 
"  the  most  learned  men,  who  have  not  written,  or  at  least  some  supreme  iudgt; 
"  of  all  controversies  must  he  appointed  by  common  consent."' 


318  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

1.  I  say,  if  the  layman  must,  for  the  sake  of  those  difficulties, 
quit  revealed  religion,  he  must  part  with  the  Deists'  catholic  reli- 
gion upon  the  same  account.     Herbert  has  told  us,  and  it  were  in- 
deed ridiculous  to  say  the  contrary,   that  this   catholic  religion  is 
comprehensive  not  only  of  their  five  articles,  but  their  explications. 
Now,  are  there  not  as  many,  and  no  less  intricate  debates  about 
this  religion,  as  about  that  which  is  revealed  ?  Is  not  its  sufficiency 
disputed  ?     Must  not  the  layman  read  all  books,  converse  with  all 
learned  men,  &c.  before  he  can  rest  satisfied  in  it  ?     Are  there  not 
intricate  and  perplexed  disputes  about  the  authority,   extent,  use, 
matter  and  manner  of  the  promulgation  of  the  law  of  nature  ? 
Where  shall  the  layman  find  the  notices  that  belong  to  this  religion  ? 
Shall  he  turn  inward,  and  find  them  inscribed  upon  his  own  mind  ? 
So  our  author  advises.    But  learned  men  say,  and  pretend  to  prove 
the  contrary.     And  if  most  men  look  into  their  own  minds,  they 
will  either  say  with  the  latter  that  they  are  not  there  ;  or  com- 
plain that  they  are  become  so  dim  that  they  cannot  read  them  un- 
less some  charitable  Deist  will  affijrd  them  his  spectacles.     But 
when  they  have  got  them,  what  shall  they  do  next  for  the  explica- 
tions ?     Are  the  explications  written  there  too  ?     The  Deists  dare 
not  say  it.     But  these  likewise  are  necessary,  say  the   Deists,  as 
we  have  heard  from  Blount  and  Herbert  before.     Shall  the  laity 
consult  the   Doctors  about  their  meaning  ?     But  do  not  Doctors 
differ  ?     Do  not  the  Magi,  and  not  a  few  learned  Greeks,  as  Zeno 
and  Crysippus,  &c.  teach  Sodomy  to  be  lawful  ?     Was  it  not  the 
judgment  of  others,  that  a  wise  man  ought   "  To  steal,  and  com- 
mit adultnj  and  sacrilege  upon  occasions,  for  none  of  these  things 
are  hy  nature  evil."     So  Theodorus,  as  Hesychius  illustriously 
reports  in  his  life.*     Does  not  Aristippus  and  Carneades,  with 
many  others,  overthrow  the  whole  law  of  nature,  telling  us,  that 
nothing  is  naturally  just  or  unjust,  good  or  evil,  but  by  virtue  of 
some  arbitrary  law?     Has  not  the  same  opinion  been  revived, 
broached  and  inculcated  by  Hobbes  and  others  among  ourselves*? 
Has  not  Plato  long  since  observed  in  his  Phedon,  "  That  if  any 
«'  one  name  either  silver  or  iron,  presently  all  men  agree  what  it  is 
«  that  is  intended  ;  but  if  they  speak  of  that  which  is  just  or  good, 
«'  presently  we  are  at  variance  with  others,  and  among  ourselves." 
In  a  word,  he  that  will  cast  at  revelation,  for  its  controversies,  is  a 
fool  to  go  over  to  natural  religion,  in  expectation  to  be  free  of  con- 
troversy.    Thus  we  are  at  least  upon  a  level  with  the  Deists. 

2.  If  the  layman,  in  defiance  of  the  Deists'  queries,  may  reach  a 
satisfying  assurance  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  scriptures,  where 
is  then  the  necessity  for  his  quitting  revelation  ?  It  will  quite  evan- 
ish.    This,  I  say,  he  may  have,  without  troubhng  his  head  about 


See  Dr.  Owen  on  the  Sabbath,  Exercjt.  3.  §  IZ. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      319 

impertinent  queries  of  this  sort,  if  he  duly  attend  to  that  one,  plain 
and  ritional  direction  given  by  our  Lord,  John  vii.  17.  If  any 
man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself. 

The  scriptures  containing  a  full  account  of  all  the  concerns  of  the 
Christian  religion,  are  exhibited  to  him,  and  put  in  his  hand  by  the 
church  as  a  revelation  from  God,  wherein  all  his  concerns  for  eter- 
nity are  wrapped  up.     I  do  not  plead,  that  the  testimony  of  the 
church  is  a  sufficient  ground  for  bottoming  his  faith.     But  this  I 
say,  that  the  testimony  of  the  church  is  a  sufficient  ground  for  any 
man  to  judge  and  conclude  firmly,  that  its  pretensions  are  not  con- 
temptible, and  that  it  deserves  the  most  serious  consideration  ima- 
ginable.    But  when  I  speak  of  the  church,  to  whose  testimony  this 
regard  is  to  be  paid,  we  set  aside,  as  of  no  consideration,  a  multitude 
of  persons,  whether  of  the  clergy  or  laity,  who  do,  in  their  practice 
visibly  contradict  the  confessed  rules  of  their  religion.     Such  per- 
sons are  scarce  to  be  reckoned  of  any  religion,  and  their  testimony  is 
of  no  consideration,  either  for  or  against  religion.     Nor  do  we  re- 
strict the  notion  of  the  church  to  the  representatives  of  it,  much 
less   to  the  Church  of  Rome,    that  mono^jolize  this  name.     But  I 
take  it  for  that  body  of  men,  of  whatever  station  or  quality,   who 
have  received,  and  do  act  answerably  to  the  Christian  religion  they 
profess,  in  some  good  measure  at  least.     Now  I  say,  the  testimony 
of  this  church,  or  body  of  men,  deserves  great  regard  in  this  mat- 
ter.    If  we  consider  them,  there  are  among  them  persons  of  un- 
tainted reputation,  enemies  themselves  being  judges.     Not  a  few  of 
them  are  of  unquestionable  judgment,  deep  discerning,  solid  learn- 
ing, and  strict  inquirers  after  truth.     They  are  not  a  few  but  many. 
Nor  are  they  confined  to  one  nation  or  age,  but  such  they  have 
been  in  all  ages,  in  all  nations,  where  Christianity  has  obtained  free 
access.     Many  of  them  are  persons,  whom  envy  itself  cannot  al- 
lege biassed,  by  external  gain  of  one  sort  or  of  another.     They  are 
persons  of  different,  nay  cross  civil  interests,  and  of  different  out- 
ward conditions.     Such  are  the  persons  who  give  this  testimony. 
Again,  if  we  consider  their  testimony,  they  bear  witness  to  the 
Christian  religion  in  all  its  concerns,  its  truth,  sufficiency,  useful- 
ness to  all  the  ends  of  religion,  with  respect  to  time  or  eternity, 
and  its  efficacy  for  beginning,  carrying  on,  maintaining,  reviving  and 
consummating   such  as  sincerely  receive  it,  in  godliness  towards 
God,  righteousness  towards  men,  sobriety  with  respect  to  ourselves; 
and  that  both  as  to  inward  principles  and  outward  acts.     Further, 
if  we  consider  in  what  way  they  give  in  their  testimony,  the  weight 
of  it  will  appear.     They  bear  witness  to  all  this,  not  only  by  their 
words,  but  by  their  deeds,  living  in  a  conformity  to  it,  parting  with 
all  that  is  dearest  to  them  for  it,  cheerfully  undergoing  the  greatest 
hardships,  patiently  bearing  the  most  cruel  torments,  to  the  loss  of 


320  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

life  itself;  and  this  they  do  neither  upon  mere  constraint,  nor  on 
the  other  hand,  from  a  rash  and  inadvertent  neglect  of  a  due  regard 
to  the  unquestionable  advantages  of  peace,  health,  life,  and  the 
other  good  things  they  part  with;  but  they  venture  upon  doing  and 
suffering  freely  and  of  choice,  upon  a  sober,  rational  consideration 
of  the  advantage  of  cleaving  to  their  religion,  and  of  its  being  such, 
as  will  do  more  than  compensate  any  loss  they  can  sustain  for  it. 
Again,  they  bear  witness  to  the  concerns  of  this  religion,  as  to  a 
thing  that  they  have  not  received  upon  bare  hearsay,  but  upon 
narrow  scrutiny,  as  that  whereof  they  have  the  experience.  They 
do  not  only  give  this  testimony,  when  it  is  new  to  them ;  but  after 
long  trial,  when  they  are  most  sedate  and  composed,  and  when  they 
can  expect  nothing  of  advantage  by  it,  and  when  they  must  lay  their 
account  with  contempt,  opposition  and  loss.  They  give  this  testi- 
mony in  whateA^er  place  they  are,  where  it  is  honored,  or  where  it 
is  opposed.  They  give  it  with  the  greatest  concern,  and  recom- 
mend this  religion  to  those  whom  they  would  least  deceive,  even 
with  their  dying  breath,  when  they  dare  not  dissemble,  and  that 
after  a  long  trial,  in  the  course  of  their  lives,  in  the  greatest  variety 
of  outward  conditions,  sufficient  to  have  discovered  the  weakness 
of  their  religion,  if  it  had  any.  They  have  made  choice  of  this  re- 
ligion, and  adhered  to  it,  under  the  greatest  outward  disadvantages, 
who  were  not  prepossessed  in  its  favor  by  education,  but  prejudiced 
against  it ;  and  they  have  embraced  it,  Avhere  they  had  a  free  choice 
to  accept  or  reject  it,  and  advantages  to  tempt  them  to  a  refusal. 
They  do  not  require  an  implicit  belief  as  Mahometans  do,  but  pro- 
voke to  experience  and  trial.  Now  I  dare  boldly  say,  that  this  tes- 
timony is  a  better,  more  plain,  obvious,  and  every  way  more  justi- 
fiable ground  of  rational  assent  to  the  divine  authority,  truth,  effica- 
cy, and  sufficiency  of  the  Christian  religion,  than  can  be  given  for 
the  like  assent,  to  any  other  particular  religion  whatsoever.  Nay^ 
there  is  more  in  this  one  testimony,  as  it  is,  or  at  least  may  be  qua- 
lified with  other  circumstances,  discernible  even  by  the  most  ordi- 
nary layman,  here  for  brevity's  sake  omitted,  (the  urging  this  in  its 
full  strength,  not  being  my  present  design)  than  can  be  offered  for 
all  the  other  religions  in  the  world,  natural,  or  pretending  to  revela- 
tion, were  all  that  can  be  said  for  them  altogether  put  in  one  argument. 
Any  reasonable  man  cannot  but  think  his  eternal  concerns  safer  in 
following  this  society,  than  any  other  whatsoever  :  There  is  not 
such  another  company  elsewhere  to  be  met  with,  as  might  be  de- 
monstrated to  the  conviction  of  the  stiffest  opposer.  But  this  I 
plead  not  at  present.  I  say  not,  that  he  should  build  his  persua- 
sion of  Christianity  upon  this  testimony.  All  that  I  make  of  it  is 
this.  That  he  has  reason  to  consider  the  scriptures,  as  thus  attest- 
ed, as  a  book  that  has,  at  least,  very  plausible  pretences  to  divini- 
ty, a  book  that  deserves  serious  perusal,  a  book  that  cannot  possi- 


PRtNCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      321 

biy  have  any  obvious  and  unquestionable  arguments  of  imposture, 
and  consequently,  that  it  deserves  to  be  read  through,  and  fully 
heard  before  it  is  cast ;  and  that  though  there  occur  in  it  some 
things  that  he  cannot  presently  understand,  or  whose  use  and  value 
he  cannot  take  up,  he  ought  not  therefore  to  be  prejudged  against 
the  divine  authority  of  the  book  upon  the  account  of  them,  till,  at 
least,  it  is  heard  to  an  end.  For,  who  knows  not,  that  things  which 
appear  incredible,  unreasonable,  yea  ridiculous,  before  their  causes, 
order  and  design  are  understood,  may,  upon  acquaintance  with 
these,  appear  convincingly  credible,  useful,  and  every  way  reasona- 
ble ?  This  is  all  I  claim  of  the  layman  at  present,  and  he  deserves 
not  the  name  of  a  reasonable  man  who  will  deny  it  upon  such  a 
ground.  And  if  the  Deists  had  considered  this,  we  had  not  been 
troubled  with  the  many  childish  and  trifling  prejudices,  wherewith 
their  Oracles  of  Reason  and  other  books  are  stuffed.  Nor  could 
they  have  been  diverted  from  the  serious  consideration  of  the 
scriptures,  by  such  pitiful  exceptions. 

Well,  the  scriptures  being  put  into  the  layman's  hand,  thus  at- 
tested, he  sets  himself  to  the  perusal  of  them,  and  such  a  perusal 
as  the  case  requires  ;  looking  to  God  for  direction,  he  tries  the 
means  appointed  by  them,  for  satisfaction  as  to  their  divinity. 
While  he  is  seeking  light  from  God,  in  such  a  matter,  he  dare  not 
expect  it,  if  he  continue  in  the  neglect  of  known  duty,  or  the  com- 
mission of  known  sin,  and  therefore  he  studies  to  avoid  them.  He 
is  resolved  to  follow  truth,  as  it  is  discovered,  and  to  subscribe  to 
the  scripture  pretensions,  if  they  give  sufficient  evidence  of  them- 
selves. Nothing  is  here  resolved,  but  what  is  reasonable  beyond 
exception.  In  pursuance  of  this  just  resolution,  he  reads  them, 
and  upon  his  perusal,  what  passages  he  cannot  understand,  or  reach 
the  reason  of,  he  passes  at  present  and  goes  on,  till  he  see  further 
what  may  be  the  intention  of  them.  And  he  finds  in  plain  and 
convincing  expressions,  his  own  case,  and  the  case  of  all  men  by 
nature,  clearly  discovered,  and  urged  upon  him  by  this  book  ;  the 
words  pierce  his  soul,  dive  into  his  conscience,  and  make  manifest 
the  secrets  of  his  hearty  (know^n  to  none  but  God)  manifest  his  sins, 
in  their  nature  and  tendency,  and  all  their  concernments.  His 
conscience  tells  him,  all  this  is  true  to  a  tittle,  though  he  did  not 
know  it  before,  and  none  other  save  the  heart-searching  God,  could 
know  what  was  transacted  within  his  heart,  though  overlooked  by 
himself.  The  discovery  not  only  carries  with  it  an  evidence  of 
truth,  which  his  conscience  subscribes  to  ;  but  the  words  wherein 
it  is  expressed,  bear  themselves  in  upon  his  soul  with  a  light,  au- 
thority and  majesty  formerly  unknown,  evidencing  their  meaning 
and  truth,  and  filling  the  soul  with  unusual  and  awful  impressions  of 
the  majesty  and  authority  of  the  speaker.  Thus  being  convinced 
and  judged,  and  the  secrets  of  his  heart  made  manifest,  he  isi 

41 


322  AN  INaUlRY  INTO  THE 

forced  to  fall  down  and  acknowledge,  that  God  is  in  the  word  of 
a  truth.  And  lie  is  ready  to  say,  Come  see  a  book  that  told  me 
all  that  ever  I  did  in  my  life,  is  not  this  the  book  of  God  ?  Thus 
he  stands  trembling  under  the  sense  of  the  wrath  of  God,  due  to 
him  for  his  ?Ins.  He  reads  on,  and  finds  in  the  same  book  a  dis- 
covery of  relief,  frequently  proposed  in  plain  passages.  He  is 
urged  to  an  acceptance  of  it.  The  discovery  carries  along  with 
it  a  full  evidence  of  the  suitableness,  excellence/,  and  advantage  of 
the  remedy  :  Avid  by  a  gust  of  its  goodness,  or  inward  sense,  he 
is  drawn  to  ?tn  approbation.  Upon  this  approbation  the  promised 
effects  follow.  His  fears  are  dissipated,  his  hopes  revived,  his  soul 
is  made  acquainted  with  formerly  unknown  and  God-becoming  ex- 
pressions of  the  nature  and  excellencies  of  God,  and  going  still  ou 
every  day,  repeated  experience  occur  of  the  justness  of  the  disco- 
veries tlie  word  makes  of  himself,  the  authority  of  its  commands, 
faitbfnlness  of  its  promises,  the  awfulness  of  its  threatenings,  none 
of  wliich  fall  to  the  ground.  He,  in  a  vrord,  has  repeated  expe- 
rience of  the  unparalleled  efficacy  of  the  whole,  for  the  cure  of 
his  darkness,  his  corruption,  &c.  which  despised  other  applications  ; 
and  towards  his  advancement  to  a  sincere  and  conscientious  regard 
lo  all  his  duties,  outward  and  inward,  towaid  God  and  man. 

Let  us  noYiT  but  suppose  this  to  be  the  case  with  the  man  upon  his 
perusal  of  the  scriptures,  though  with  respect  to  innumerable  souls, 
it  is  more  than  a  bare  supposition  :  upon  this  supposition,  I  say,  1 . 
The  man  has  the  highest  security  he  can  desire,  that  this  book  is, 
as  to  its  substance,  the  very  word  of  God,  as  certainly  as  if  it  were 
spoken  to  him  immediately  by  a  voice  from  heaven.  This  cannot 
well  be  denied  by  any  that  understands  this  supposition.  2.  I  say, 
the  man  thus  convinced  may  laugh  at  all  Herbert's  queries  as  im- 
pertinent. He  finds  God  speaking  by  the  word,  and  owning  it  for 
his.  He  needs  not  therefore  trouble  himself  who  wrote  it,  or  whe- 
ther they  were  honest  men  v.ho  transcribed  it,  or  whether  they 
performed  their  part,  whether  it  was  designed  for  him  ;  and  the 
like  may  be  said  of  all  his  other  queries.  He  will  find  no  occa- 
sion for  that  distinction  betwixt  traditional  or  original  revelation, 
mentioned  by  Herbert,  and  insisted  upon  by  Mr.  Locke,=*  on 
what  design  1  leave  others  to  judge.  In  this  case,  as  to  the  sub- 
stance, it  is  all  one  to  him,  as  if  it  had  not  come  thi'ough  another 
hand  ;  nor  lias  he  reason  to  suspect,  that  God  would  permit  to 
creep  into,  or  stand  in  a  book,  which  for  the  substance,  he  still 
owns  and  evinces  to  be  from  liim,  any  thing  of  a  coarser  alloy,  at 
least  any  such  corruption  as  might  make  it  unworthy  of  him  to  own 
it,  oi-  unsafe  to  use  it  to  the  design  it  was  given  for :  Yea,  he  has 
the  strongest  security  that  the  perfections  and  providence  of  God 

*  liOclit's  Essay  ou  Hum.  Understand.  Book  4.  Cap.  18.  §  6.  7.  8. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS!.      323 

of  God  can  afford,  to  rest  fully  assured  of  the  contrary.  He  has 
no  reason  to  stumble  at  passages  that  he  cannot  understand, 
or  such  as  by  others  are  reckoned  ridiculous,  but  rather  to  say 
with  Socrates,  in  another  case,  "  What  I  understand  I  admire,  and 
"  am  fully  convinced  to  be  every  way  worthy  of  its  author  ;  and 
"  therefore  I  conclude  what  I  understand  not,  to  be  equally  excel- 
"  lent,  and  that  it  would  appear  so  if  I  understood  all  its  con- 
«'  cerns."  Finally,  This  supposition  takes  ofl'  all  pretence  of  he- 
sitation about  the  meaning  of  the  scriptures,  as  to  what  the  man  is 
particularly  concerned  in.  The  story  of  the  necessity  of  an  in- 
fallible  judge,  is  built  upon  this  supposition,  That  the  scriptures 
are  so  obscure  in  matters  necessarily  relating  to  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  the  vulgar,  that  they  cannot  be  understood  by  them  satis- 
fyingly,  in  the  use  of  appointed  means.  This  supposition  is  pal- 
pably false,  coiitrary  to  scripture,  reason  aiid  experience,  as  is 
evinced  by  our  writers  against  the  Papists,  who  fully  consider 
their  pleas,  and  paiticularly  those  which  Herbert  and  the  Deists 
have  borrowed  from  them,  who  may  be  consulted  by  the  reader. 
3.  Thus  far  I  have  made  appear,  that  the  layman  has  the  just- 
est  reason  in  the  world  to  look  upon  it  as  his  dutj ,  or  the  will  of 
God,  that  he  should  give  the  scriptures  such  a  perusal.  2.  That 
in  doing  his  will  there  is  a  way,  at  least,  supposable,  wherein  he 
may  reach  full  satisfaction  in  his  own  mind,  in  defiance  of  the 
Deists'  queries  about  the  divinity  of  the  scriptures,  and  reach  the 
highest  rational  security,  even  that  of  faith,  bottomed  upon  divine 
testimony,  and  inward  sense  or  experience  ;  which  Herbert  him- 
self, upon  all  occasions,  truly  asserts  to  be  the  highest  certainty. 
I  shall  now  advance  one  step  further,  and  assert,  that  this  is  more 
than  a  mere  supposition,  that  it  is  matter  of  fact,  that  they,  who 
do  receive  the  scriptures  in  a  due  manner,  especially  among  the 
laity  or  illiterate,  do  find  and  rest  upon  this  ground  in  their  persua- 
sion. Upon  this  ground  it  was  alone,  that  multitudes  did  at  first 
receive  it,  and  for  it  reject  the  religions  they  were  bred  in;  and 
not  as  the  Deists  imagine,  upon  a  blind  veneration  to  teachers, 
priests  or  preachers,  whom  by  education,  they  were  taught  to  ab- 
hor ;  And  upon  this  ground  they  still  do  adhere  to  it,  and  receive 
it  as  written  in  the  scriptures.  The  words  of  Mr.  Baxter,  as  I 
find  them  quoted  by  Mr.  Wilson  (for  I  have  not  seen  Baxter's  book 
in  answer  to  Herbert  de  VerUale)  are  remarkable  to  this  purpose, 
"  I  think,  says  he.  That  in  the  very  hearing  or  reading,  God's  Spi- 
"  rit  often  so  concurreth  as  that  the  will  itself  should  be  touched 
"  witli  an  internal  gust  or  savour  of  the  goodness  contained  in  the 
"  doctrine,  and  at  the  same  time  the  understanding  with  an  inter- 
"  nal  irradiation,  which  breeds  such  a  sudden  apprehension  of  the 
*'  verity  of  it,  as  nature  gives  men  of  natiu'al  principles.     And  I 


324  AN  iNaUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  am  persuaded,  that  this  increased  by  more  experience  and  love, 
"  and  inward  gusts,  doth  hold  most  Christians  faster  to  Christ, 
"  than  naked  reasonings  could  do.  And  were  it  not  for  this,  un- 
*  *  learned  ignorant  persons  were  still  in  danger  of  apostasy,  by 
* '  every  subtle  caviller  that  assaults  them.  And  I  believe  that  all 
* '  true  Christians  have  this  kind  of  internal  knowledge,  from  the 
**  suitableness  of  the  truth  and  goodness  of  the  gospel  to  their  new- 
*'  quickened,  illuminated,  sanctified  souls."*  The  apostle  tells  us, 
God  who  commajided  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkiuss^  hath  shined 
into  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knorvledge  of  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. — If  the  Deist  say,  How  proves  the 
layman  this  to  me  ?  I  answer.  That  is  not  the  question.  For  the 
design  of  the  Deists  in  these  queries,  is  to  prove,  that  the  layman 
cannot  be  assured  about  the  original  and  meaning  of  revelation  in 
his  own  mind,  and  so  must  close  with  their  catholic  religion.  Now 
in  direct  contradiction  to  this,  I  say,  here  is  a  ground  to  stand  up- 
on. And  if  he  has  this  ground,  even  a  sober  Deist  must  allow 
he  has  no  reason  to  be  moved  from  it,  but  must  fully  know  that  the 
doctrines  are  of  God.  And  so  I  have  overthrown  the  design  of  the 
queiy.  As  for  the  Deists'  question,  How  he  proves  it  to  others  ? 
it  is  impertinent.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  expect,  that  every  com- 
mon man  can  stop  the  mouths  of  gain-sayers.  It  is  enough  for  him 
if  he  can  give  a  reason,  which  is  good,  and  must  be  owned  such  in 
itself.  If  the  Deist  questions  matters  of  fact,  that  he  finds  matters 
so  and  so ;  I  answer,  A  blind  man  may  question  whether  I  see  this 
paper  now  before  me  ;  and  yet  I  have  good  reason  to  believe  it  is 
there,  though  I  should  fail  of  convincing  him. 

If  the  Deist  says,  I  have  perused  the  scriptures,  and  found  no 
such  effect ;  I  answer,  in  matters  of  experience  one  affirmative 
proves  more  than  twenty  negatives  ;  unless  the  application  is  in 
all  respects  equal,  and  the  effect  depend  upon  a  necessary  cause  : 
For  where  a  voluntary  agent  is  the  cause  of  the  effect,  there  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  upon  the  like  application.  But  to  wave 
this  general,  which  would  require  more  room  to  explain,  than  I  can 
allow  it  in  this  place,  I  say  further,  to  the  complainer,  Have  you 
given  the  scripture  such  a  perusal,  as  I  have  proved  in  a  way  of 
duty  you  are  obliged  to  do  ?  Have  you  used  the  means,  in  so  far, 
at  least,  as  is  possible  for  you  ?  Have  you  sought,  have  you  waited 
for  God's  guidance  and  preservation  from  mistake,  and  from  unjust 
prejudices  against  him,  his  works,  his  word,  (if  this  be  such)  and 
his  ways  ?  Do  you  carefully  study  to  avoid  what  may  reasonably 
be  thought,  even  by  a  considerate  Heathen,  to  obstruct  the  grant 
of  the  assistance  desired  from  God  ?  Do  you  carefully  avoid  known 
sin  ?  Do  you  endeavor  the  performance  of  what  you  know  to  be 
duty  ?  Are  you  resolved  to  follow  in  practice  where  light  leads  ?  If 

*  Baxter's  Animad.  on  Herbet  deVerit.  pacjc  135.  quoted  by  M.  J.  WilsoJi, 
Scriptnics  iuteriweter  asLcrted,  Appendix  page  20. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.         325 

you  dare  not  frankly  answer,  you  have  no  reason  to  complain.  For 
my  own  part,  I  am  persuaded,  that  in  fact,  none  who  have  done  his 
will  even  thus  far,  have  reason  to  table  a  complaint  against  the 
word.  Others  who  take  a  quite  contrary  course,  are  unreasonable 
in  the  complaint.  Disputes  about  what  might  be  the  case,  upon 
supposition  of  a  person's  doing  all,  that  in  his  present  circumstan- 
ces he  is  able  to  do,  and  yet  miss  of  satisfaction  as  to  the  divine 
authority  of  the  woid,  until  the  subject  of  this  question  be  found, 
I  think  not  myself  concerned  in,  at  least  in  a  controversy  with  the 
Deists.  It  is  unreasonable  to  question  the  scripture's  authority,  or 
the  evidence  of  it,  upon  suppositions  that  never  were  in  being,  and 
I  am  persuaded,  never  shall  have  a  being. 

But  these  things  I  leave.  This  dispute  lies  wholly  out  of  our 
road.  But  I  have  been  obliged  to  this  digression,  in  pursuit  of  the 
Deist's  impertinent  queries.  I  say  impertinent,  because,  were  all 
granted  that  is  aimed  at  in  these  queries,  it  will  not  avail  one  rush, 
towards  the  proof  of  the  point  the  Deists  are  on,  viz.  the  validiti/ 
of  their  religion  :  For  were  revealed  religion  uncertain,  is  it  a  good 
consequence,  that  therefore  the  Deists'  religion  is  certain  ?  What 
I  have  said  in  defence  of  revealed  religion,  I  would  have  to  be  look- 
ed upon  only  as  a  digression,  and  not  as  a  full  declaration  of  my 
opinion ;  much  less  would  I  have  this  understood  as  the  substance 
of  what  can  be  pleaded  on  behalf  of  that  blessed  book  that  has 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light.  This  is  not  the  hundredth 
part  of  what  even  I  could  say,  were  this  my  subject.  And  others 
have  said,  and  can  plead  much  more  than  I  am  able.  However, 
this  I  owed  to  the  truth  of  God.  Such  as  would  see  all  these  pre- 
tences against  revelation,  repelled,  are  desired  to  consult  those,  wiio 
designedly  treat  of  this  subject. 

There  are  other  things  in  these  queries  now  animadverted  upon, 
that  deserve  rather  contempt  than  an  answer.  In  particular,  it  is 
supposed,  as  one  of  the  principal  foundations  of  those  two  queries, 
now  under  consideration,  That  a  man  cannot  reach  certainty  in  his 
own  mind  upon  solid  grounds,  and  rationally  acquiesce  in  it  as  such, 
unless  "  he  knows  all  that  can  be  said  against  it,  read  all  books,  con» 
"  verse  with  all  learned  men,  &c."  than  which  there  is  not  a  more 
extravagant  expression  in  Bevis  and  Garagantua.  Admit  it,  and 
I  shall  demonstrate  against  any  that  will  undertake  it,  that  nothing 
is  certain.  I  cannot  but  admire  that  so  learned  a  person  as  Her- 
bert could  use  such  an  extravagant  supposition.  But  what  will  not 
a  bad  cause  drive  a  man  upon  ?  This  confirms  what  is  ordinarily 
observed,  that  there  is  no  opinion,  however  unreasonable,  but  has 
some  learned  man  for  its  patron,  if  not  inventor. 

We  shall  now  go  on  to  the  rest  of  the  queries,  which  will  be  of 
more  easy  dispatch.  That  I  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  these  two, 
is  out  of  regard  to  revelation  and  its  honor,  and  not  from  any  weight 
in  the  queries.     As  for  them,  this  alone  had  bceu  a  sufficient  an- 


S26  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

swer,  which  I  propose  in  a  way  of  a  counter  quer} ,  and  conclmic 
with  it — "  If  a  layman  that  is  illiterate  cannot  be  satisfied  as  to  the 
"  truth  of  revealed  religion,  how  doth  this  prove  the  Deists'  five 
"  articles  to  be  a  sufficient  and  good  religion." 

Qneri/  11.  "  Supposing  all  true  in  their  originals,  and  in  their 
"  explications,  whether  yet  they  be  so  good  for  the  instructing  of 
"  mankind,  that  bring  pardon  of  sin  upon  such  easy  terms,  as  to 
"  believe  the  business  is  done  to  our  hand  ?"  And, 

Q}!erJ/  VIL  "  Whether  this  doctrine  doth  not  derogate  from  vir- 
"  tue  and  goodness,  while  our  best  actions  are  represented  as  im- 
*'  perfect  and  sinful,  and  that  ii  is  impossible  to  keep  the  ten  com- 
"  mandments,  so  as  God  will  accept  of  our  actions,  doing  the  best 
*'  we  can  ?"  Thus  Blount  gives  us  Herbert's  sixth  query  in  two.* 
There  is  no  material  difference  in  Herbert,  save  only  that  he  harps 
upon  the  old  string,  and  spends  himself  in  bitter  invectives  against 
the  scripture  doctrine  about  the  decrees  of  God,  of  which  we  have 
said  enough  before.  And  therefore  I  think  it  needless  to  burthen 
this  paper  with  his  words. 

.  The  two  former  queries  struck  at  scripture  revelation  itself;  these 
two  strike  at  the  matter  contained  in  the  scriptures.  And  here 
there  is  a  double  charge  laid  against  the  doctrine  revealed  in  the 
scriptures,  as  black  as  hell  can  invent,  and  as  false  as  it  is  black. 
The  sixth  query  charges  it  with  favoring  sin,  by  bringing  pardon 
upon  too  easy  terms  ;  and  the  seventh  charges  it  with  derogating 
from  virtue. 

For  an  answer  to  both,  I  might  oppose  experience.  Sin  is  no 
where  by  any  so  opposed,  virtue  no  where  so  sincerely  cultivated, 
as  among  those  who  sincerely  receive  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction, 
and  believe  the  utmost  as  to  the  inability  of  man  in  his  present  fal- 
len case,  without  supernatural  assistance,  and  gracious  acceptance, 
to  please  God,  Dare  the  Deists  compare  with  them  in  this  respect? 
If  they  should,  I  know  what  would  be  the  issue,  if  the  judge  had 
conscience  or  honesty.  A  Socrates,  Seneca  or  Plato,  deserves  not 
to  be  named  in  the  same  dr,y  with  the  meanest  serious  Christian, 
that  believes  these  doctrines,  either  with  respect  to  i^iety  toward 
God,  or  dnti/  tov/ard  man. 

But  as  to  the  first  charge,  I  ssy  the  ground  of  it  is  false ;  the 
ffuery  is  disingenuous  and  deceitful.  The  ground  of  it  is  a  suppo- 
sition, that  r*^velation  excludes  the  necessity  of  repentance.  This 
is  manifestly  false :  Both  Herbert  and  Blount  knew  it  to  be  false  ; 
and  could  not  but  do  so,  if  ever  they  read  the  Bible.  And  the  que- 
ry comparing  revelation  upon  this  known  misrepresentation,  with 
natural  religion,  is  shamefully  disingenuous.  Let.  the  query  be, 
Whether  it  is  more  favorable  to  sin,  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  pardon- 
ed without  a  satisfaction  to  justice  by  Christ,  and  repentance  upon 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag-.  91.  9:?. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       8^7 

our  part,  as  revelation  teaches  ;  or,  that  upon  our  repentance  mere- 
ly, God  is  obliged  to  pardon  it,  as  the  Deists  say  ?  Now,  1  leave  it 
to  the  Deists  to  answer  this. 

As  to  the  second  charge,  revelation  derogates  nothing  from  vir- 
tue. It  teaches  indeed  that  our  best  actions  are  imperfect,  and  he 
knows  not  what  perfection  means,  or  what  is  required  thereto,  that 
will  deny  it.  It  teaches  that  lh(y  who  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
€rod.  It  talks  at  another  rate  than  Herbert,  of  the  condition  of 
sinful  man,  as  to  acceptance  with  God.  He  gives  him  a  directkiu, 
"  Cum  bonnm  pro  i>irUi  prceslas,  mercedem  a  bonitate  ilia  supre- 
"  ma  pete,  exis^e,  habe;  quo pado  revera  sapies.'^^  That  is,  "Man- 
"  fully  perform  your  duty  as  you  can,  and  (whatever  sin  remain) 
"  ask,  demand,  and  have  your  reward.  This  is  the  way  to  be  truly 
"  wise."  This  petulent  advice  the  scripture  does  not  justify,  and 
sober  reason  reprobates.  Where  sin  intervenes,  whatever  the  sin- 
ner does,  in  way  of  obedience,  I  conceive  it  will  be  as  good  wisdom 
as  our  author  teaches  him,  to  be  very  sober  with  his  demands.  But 
to  return  :  Revelation,  by  teaching  man's  inability,  doth  not  hin- 
der him  from  virtue ;  but  takes  him  off  from  his  own  strength, 
^vjiich  would  fail  him  in  the  performance,  and  leads  him  where  he 
may  get  strength,and  where  innumerable  persons  have  got  strength 
to  perform  duty  acceptably ;  and  it  points  to  the  only  ground, 
whereon  sinful  and  imperfect  obedience  can  be  accepted  with,  or 
expect  a  reward  from  God. 

Quer//  VIII.  "  Whether  speaking  good  words,  thinking  good 
"  thoughts,  and  doing  good  actions,  be  not  the  just  exercise  of  a 
"  man's  life  ?  Or  that  without  embracing  the  foresaid  five  princi- 
"  pies  or  fundamentals,  it  be  impossible  to  keep  peace  among  men, 
"  that  God  may  be  well  served  ?"  Thus  Blount.f  This  is  Her- 
bert's seventh  and  last  ((uery,  and  he  only  adds  one  clause  to  it, 
wanting  here  ;  "  Whether  the  layman  may  not  spend  his  time  bet- 
"  ter  in  those  exercises  mentioned,  than  if  he  employed  it  in  de- 
"  ciding  controversies  he  does  not  understand."J  • 

The  supposed  necessity  of  the  layman  perplexing  himself  with 
controversies,  at  which  Herbert  here  aims,  in  case  he  see  meet  to 
embrace  revelation,  we  have  above  weighed  and  cast.  But  as  to 
the  query  itself,  it  is  utterly  impertinent.  For  this  is  the  question 
they  should  have  proposed,  "  Whether  their  religion  is  sufEcient 
"  to  bring  a  man  to  these  just  exercises,  and  to  maintain  peace  in 
*'  society?"  And  not  as  they  propose  it,  "  Whether  these  exer- 
"  cises  be  in  themselves  good?"  which  nobody  denies:  let  this  be 
the  question,  and  we  answer  negatively.  For  this  we  have  given 
sufficient  reasons  above. 


Herbert  de  Vcritate,  pa.^.  108.  f  Herb.  Rel.  I..iici,  Appendix. 

Blount  I?cl.  Laici  page  9'2. 


328  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

Qveiy  IX.  "  Whether  the  foresaid  five  principles  do  not  best 
"  agree  with  the  precepts  given  in  the  ten  commandments,  and 
"  with  the  two  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ,  vis.  To  love  God  above 
"  all,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves  ?  as  well  as  with  the  words 
"  of  St.  Peter,  That  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  God,  and  work- 
eth  risihtfiousness  is  accepted  of  God."* 

This  query  is  the  same  with  Herbert's  seventh  and  last  persua- 
sive to  Deism,  which  we  have  answered  above.  It  is  falsely  sup- 
posed that  revelation  teaches,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  ten  com- 
mands, or  Christ's  summary  of  them,  is  snflBcient  to  salvation. 
Yea,  revelation  teaches  expressly,  that  no  man  can  practice  them 
without  grace  from  Christ,  and  that  there  is  no  other  way  of  salva- 
tion but  by  faith  in  him.  Again,  it  is  falsely  supposed,  that  the 
agreement  of  these  articles  with  (that  is  to  say,  their  not  contradict- 
ing) these  commands,  proves  them  a  sufficient  religion.  This  ar- 
gument, if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  too  much ;  for  it  will  prove 
any  one  of  them  alone  to  be  suflScient.  If  the  Deists  mean  that 
their  five  articles,  not  only  are  not  inconsistent  with,  but  sufficient 
to  bring  men  the  length  required  by  the  ten  commands,  our 
Jjord's  summary  of  them,  or  to  fear  God  and  work  righteousness, 
as  Cornelius  did :  I  answer  negatively  to  the  question,  they  can 
bring  no  man  to  this.  Cornelius,  of  whom  Peter  speaks,  had  em- 
braced the  Old  Testament  revelation.  What  Peter  speaks  of  men 
of  all  7iations  being  accepted  with  God,  relates  to  the  discovery  God 
had  made  to  him  of  his  design  to  admit  men  of  all  nations  promiscu- 
ously to  acceptance  with  him  through  the  gospel  revelation :  And 
consequently,  that  the  opinion  hitherto  received  by  Peter  and 
other  Jews,  of  the  continued  confinement  of  revealed  religion  and 
its  privileges  to  Israel,  was  a  mistake.  So  that  this  place  helps 
Tiot  the  Deists,  if  it  is  not  cut  off  from  its  scope  and  cohesion,  or  in- 
terpreted without  respect  to  it.  This  way  of  interpretation  of 
scripture  is  not  safe.  I  know  not  where  Mr.  Blount  learned  it ; 
but  I  can  tell  him  where  there  is  a  precedent  of  it — Matt.  iv.  And 
if  the  Deists  have  a  mind  to  follow  that  precedent,  they  shall  not 
be  followed  by  me. 

Query  X.  "  Whether  the  doctrine  of  faith  can  by  human  reason 
"  be  supposed  or  granted  to  be  infallible,  unless  we  are  infallibly  as- 
"  sured,  that  those  who  teach  this  doctrine  do  know  the  secret  coun- 
«  selsofGod."t 

To  this  I  answer.  That  I  am  sufficiently  secured  as  to  the  infal- 
lible certainty  of  the  doctrine,  if  I  have  received  the  scriptures  upon 
the  ground  above-mentioned,  without  supposing  any  who  now  teach 
it,  to  have  any  further  acquaintance  with  the  secret  counsels  of 
of  God,  than  the  word  gives  them. 


*  Blount,  ib.  page  92,  93.  -^  Blount,  Rel.  Laici,  pag.  93. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      329 

Qnejy  XL  "  Whether  all  things  in  the  scriptures,  (besides  the 
"  moral  part,  which  agrees  with  our  five  principles)  such  as  pro- 
"  phecy,  miracles  and  revelations,  depending  on  the  history,  may 
«  not  be  so  far  examined,  as  to  be  made  appear  by  what  authority 
"  they  are  or  may  be  received  ?"* 

I  answer,  Revelation,  in  all  its  parts,  is  capable  to  stand  the  test 
of  the  strictest  trial,  provided  it  be  just,  and  be  managed  as  becomes 
it.  But  I  must  tell  the  Deists  one  thing  in  their  ear.  That  if  the 
scriptures  once  evince  themselves  to  be  from  God,  by  sufficient 
evidence,  they  are  obliged,  upon  their  peril,  to  receive  all  that  it 
teaches  them,  though  they  cannot  prove  it  by  reason  ;  nay,  nor 
explain  it.  But  what  if  any  revealed  doctrine  be  contrary  to  rea- 
son ?  Upon  the  foregoing  supposition,  this  query  cannot  be  excus- 
ed of  blasphemy,   but  is  highly  impertinent  and  unreasonable. 

Q,uery  XII.  "  Whether  in  human  reason  any  one  may,  or  ought 
"  to  be  convinced  by  one  single  testimony,  so  far  as  to  believe  things 
"  contrary  to,  or  besides  reason  ?"f 

One  single  testimony  is  writ  in  a  different  character  in  the  que- 
ry, perhaps  to  give  us  to  understand,  that  by  it  is  meant  the  testi- 
mony of  the  revealer,  God.  And  it  cannot  reasonably  be  under- 
stood of  any  other  :  For  upon  no  other  single  testimony  save  that 
of  God,  is  an  assent  to  revelation  demanded,  or  pleaded  for,  by 
those  he  opposes. 

This  being  premised,  I  say  this  query  consists,  and  is  made  up 
of  three  as  impious  suppositions  as  can  enter  the  thoughts  of  any  of 
the  sons  of  men  ;  besides  that  they  are  mutually  destructive  of  one 
another.  1 .  It  supposes  that  the  one  single  testimony  of  God  is 
not  a  sufficient  warrant  for  believing  whatever  he  shall  reveal.  2. 
It  supposes  that  a  revelation  come  from  God  may  contain  things 
really  contradictory  to  our  reason.  3.  It  supposes  that  the  single 
testimony  of  God  is  not  a  sufficient  ground. to  believe  things  that 
are  besides  our  reason,  though  they  be  not  contrary  to  it,  that  is, 
truths,  which  we  cannot  prove  by  reason,  or  about  which  there  are 
some  difficulties  that  we  cannot  solve.  Take  these  three  impious 
suppositions  out  of  the  query,  and  it  has  no  difficulty  in  it.  If  once 
we  suppose  a  revelation  to  be  from  God,  we  must  lay  aside  the  se- 
cond supposition  as  impossible,  viz.  That  it  can  contain  any  thing 
really  contrary  to  reason.  Set  aside  this,  which  makes  the  query 
J'elo  de  se,  destroy  itself,  and  let  the  question  be  proposed,  Whether 
we  may  believe  upon  the  sijigle  testimony  of  God  whatever  does 
not  really  contradict  our  reason,  though  it  contains  some  difficulties, 
which  we  cannot  solve  ?  And  then  I  say,  it  is  impious  to  deny  it. 

Query  XIII.  And  lastly,  "  Whether,  if  it  were  granted  they  had 
"  revelations,  I  am  obliged  to  accept  of  another's  revelation  for  the 


i  Blount's  Rel.  Laici,  pag-.  93.  f  Ibid.  pag.  94 


42 


330  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 

"  ground  of  my  feiith  ?  Especially  if  it  doth  any  way  oppose  these 
"  five  articles,  that  are  grounded  upon  the  law  of  nature,  which  is 
"  God's  universal  magna  charla,  enacted  by  the  All-wise  and  Su- 
"  preme  Being,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  therefore  not 
"  to  be  destroyed  or  altered  by  every  whistling  proclamation  of  an 
"  enthusiast."* 

This  query  is  of  the  same  alloy  with  the  former.  To  it  we  an- 
swer shortly,  The  Christian  revelation,  (in  others  we  are  not  con- 
cerned) exhibits  matters  of  universal  concernment,  upon  evidence 
©f  their  divinity,  capable  to  satisfy  those  who  now  live,  as  well  as 
those  to  whom  they  were  originally  made  ;  and  so  are  impertinently 
called  another^s  revelation.  And  we  are  obliged  to  receive  it  as  the 
ground  of  our  faith,  and  rule  of  our  practice  as  much  as  they.  The 
supposition  that  is  added,  that  it  contains  doctrines  or  precepts  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  nature,  is  impious  and  false.  What  he  adds 
further  about  the  "  whistling  proclamations  of  enthusiasts,"  if  it  is 
not  applied  to  the  sacred  writers,  we  are  not  concerned  in  it.  If  it 
is  applied  to  them,  First,  It  is  false,  that  they  taught  any  thing  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  nature.  Secondly/,  It  is  impious  to  call  them,  in 
way  of  contempt,  enthusiasts  ;  or,  at  least,  it  is  intolerably  bold  for 
'  any  man  to  call  them  such,  before  he  has  proven  it ;  which  he  ne- 
ver did,  nor  will  all  the  Deists  on  earth  ever  be  able  to  do.  Third- 
///,  It  was  rude  and  un.aannerly  to  treat  them  with  so  much  con- 
tempt, especially  without  argument  proving  the  charge,  whom  the 
whole  authority  of  the  land,  all  the  persons  vested  with  it,  and  the 
body  of  the  people,  respect  as  men  infallibly  directed  of  God. 
Fourthli/,  It  was  disingenuous  to  treat  them  thus,  after  such  pre- 
tensions as  our  author  had  made  of  respect  to  them,  in  this  and  his 
other  books. 

Finally,  Mr.  Blount,  instead  of  a  fourteenth  query,  concludes 
with  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  as  probative  of  his  point. 
His  words  run  thus,  "  Finally,  submitting  my  discourse  to  my  im- 
"  partial  and  judicious  reader,  I  shall  conclude  with  the  saying  of 
"  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  cont.  IViphon,  page  83.  "  That  all  those 
"  vi^ho  lived  according  to  the  rule  of  reason,  were  Christians,  not- 
"  withstanding  that  they  mJglit  hax^e  been  accounted  as  Atheists  ; 
"  such  as  among  the  Greeks  were  Socrates,  Hieraclitus,  and  the 
"  like ;  and  among  the  Barbarians,  Abraham  and  Azarias :  For 
"  all  those  who  lived,  or  do  now  live,  according  to  the  rule  of  reason, 
"  are  Christians,  and  in  an  assured  quiet  condition."! 

As  to  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  it  is  not  probative  with 
us  ;  tI:ough  we  honor  the  fathers,  yet  we  do  not  think  ourselves 
obliged  to  submit  to  all  their  dictates.  This  is  said,  but  not  pro- 
ven by  him,  eiihsr  by  scripture  or  reason.     And  I  fear  not  to  say, 

*  Elounl's  Rel.  Laici,  pag.  91.  f  Blount's  Rel.Laici,  page  94,  95. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      331 

It  is  more  than  he  or  any  other  can  prove.  Abraham  is  imperti- 
nently classed  amongst  those  who  wanted  revelation  ;  Socrates  and 
Hieraclitus,  in  so  far  as  they  lived  according  to  reason,  are  assured- 
ly praise-worthy,  and  upon  this  account  are  not  to  be  reckoned 
Atheists.  That  they  were  Christians,  I  flatly  deny.  Nor  can  it 
be  proven  from  scripture  or  reason,  that  their  condition  is  assiired- 
ly  quiet.  And  further  than  this  I  am  not  concerned  to  pass  any 
judgment  about  their  state  at  present :  What  it  m  that  day  will 
manijest. 


END  OP  THE  INftUiar. 


AN 

ESSAY, 

CONCERNING  THE 

NATURE  OF  FAITH; 

OR, 

THE  GROUND  UPON  WHICH 
FAITH MSEJVTS  TO  THE  SCRIPTURES: 


THE  OPINION  OF  THE  RATIONALISTS  ABOUT  IT,  IS  PROPOSED,  AND 

EXAMINED,   ESPECIALLy    AS    IT    IS    STATED    BY    THE 

LEARNED    MR.  LOCKE,  IN  HIS  BOOK  ON 

HUMAN  UNDERSTANDING. 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


ALBANY : 
PUBLISHED  BY  H.  C.  SOUTHWICK, 

No,  73,  STATE-STREET. 


1812. 


AN  ESSAY,  4rc. 


CHAP.    I. 

Containing  some  general  Remarks  concerning  Knowledge, 
Faithy  and  particularly  divine  Faith,  and  that  both  as  to 
thefacvliy  and  actings  thereof, 

ALL  knowledge  is  commonly,  and  that  not  unfitly, 
referred  to  the  understanding  or  intellectual  poAver  of 
the  mind  of  man,  which  is  conversant  about  truth.  Our 
assent  to,  or  persuasion  of  any  truth  is  founded,  eitlier 
1 .  LTpon  the  immediate  perception  of  the  agreement  or 
disagreement  of  our  ideas,  and  so  is  called  intuitive  know- 
ledge. Or  2.  It  results  from  a  comparison  of  our  ideas 
with  some  immediate  ones,  which  helps  us  to  discern 
their  agreement  or  disagreement;  and  this  goes  under 
the  name  of  rational  knowledge.  Or  3.  It  leans  upon  the 
information  of  our  senses,  and  this  is  sensible  knowledge. 
Or  4.  It  depends  upon  the  testimony  of  credible  wit- 
nesses.   And  this  is  faith. 

Faith  again,  if  it  is  founded  upon  the  testimony  of  an- 
gels, may  be  termed  angelical;  if  on  the  testimony  of 
men,  human ;  and  if  it  is  founded  on  the  testimony  of 
God,  it  is  called  divine  faith:  It  is  of  this  last  we  design 
to  discourse,  as  what  particularly  belongs  to  our  present 
purpose. 

When  we  speak  of  divine  faith,  we  either  mean  the 
faculty  or  power  whereby  we  assent  unto  divine  testi- 
mony ;  or  the  assent  given  by  that  power.    Both  are 


336  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

signified  by  that  name,  and  faith  is  promiscuously  used 
for  the  one  or  the  other. 

Faith,  as  it  denotes  the  faculty,  power  or  ability  of 
our  minds  to  perceive  the  evidence  of,  and  assent  to  di- 
vine testimony,  is  again  either  natural  or  supernatural, 
Tliat  naturally  we  have  a  faculty  capable  of  assenting 
in  some  sort  to  divine  testimony,  is  denied  by  none,  so 
far  as  I  know.  But  that  ability  whereby  v\e  are  at  least 
habitually  fitted,  disposed  and  enabled  to  assent  in  a  due 
manner  to,  and  receive  with  a  just  legard,  tije  testimony 
of  God,  no  man  by  nature  has.  This  is  a  supernatural 
gift. 

Several  questions  I  know  are  moved  concerning  this 
ability.  It  belongs  not  to  my  subject,  neitiier  doth  my 
inclination  lead  me  to  dip  much  in  tt'cm  at  present.  I 
shall  only  suggest  the  fcAV  remarks  ensuing. 

1.  It  seems  unquestionably  clear,  that  man  originally 
had  a  power,  ability  or  faculty  capable  of  perceiving, 
discerning  and  assenting  to  divine  revelations  upon  their 
proper  evidence :  For  it  is  plain,  that  God  did  reveal 
himself  to  man  in  innocency,  and  that  he  made  man  ca- 
pable of  converse  with  himself.  But  if  such  a  faculty, 
as  this  we  speak  of,  had  been  wanting,  he  had  neither 
been  capable  of  those  revelations,  nor  fitted  for  converse 
with  God. 

2.  It  may  most  convincingly  be  made  out,  that  all  our 
faculties  have  suffered  a  dreadful  shock,  and  are  mightily 
impaired  by  the  entrance  of  sin,  and  the  corruption  of  our 
nature  thereon  ensuing;  and  particularly  our  under- 
standings are  so  far  disabled,  especially  in  things  per- 
taining unto  God,  that  we  cannot  in  a  due  manner,  per- 
ceive, discern  or  entertain  divine  revelations  upon  their 
proper  evidence,  unto  the  glory  of  God,  and  our  own 
advantage,  vmless  our  natures  are  supernatural ly  renew- 
ed. But  this,  notwithst?.nding,  the  faculty  of  assenting 
to  divine  testimony  is  not  quite  lost,  though  it  is  impair- 
ed and  lendered  until  for  performing  its  proper  work  in 
a  due  manner.     I  know  none  who  asserts,  t^at  any  of 


THE  REASON  OP  TRUE  FAITH.      337 

our  faculties  were  entirely  lost  by  tiie  fall.*  In  renova- 
tion our  faculties  are  renewed,  but  tliere  is  no  word  of 
implanting  new  ones.  It  is  certain,  unrenewed  men,  such 
as  Balaam  and  others,  have  had  revelations  made  to  them, 
and  did  assent  to  those  revelations.  Nor  is  it  less  clear, 
that  the  devils  believe  and  tremhle. 

3.  Whether  men,  in  a  state  of  natiu-e,  whose  minds 
are  not  renewed,  may  not  so  far  discern  and  be  affected 
by  the  characters  and  evidences  of  God  impressed  upon 
divine  revelations,  particularly  the  scriptiu'es,  where 
those  evidences  shine  brightly,  as  thereby  to  be  obliged, 
and  actually  drawn  to  give  some  sort  of  assent  into  the 
testimony  of  God,  I  shall  not  positively  determine: 
Though  the  affirmative  seems  probable  to  me.  The 
impress  of  a  Deity  is  no  less  evident  on  the  scriptures 
than  his  other  works.  He  has  magnified  this  word  above 
all  his  name.  Besides,  I  do  not  see,  how  the  very  facul- 
ty itself  can  be  thought  to  remain,  if  it  is  not  capable  of 
discerning  any  thing  of  God,  where  he  gives  the  most 
full  and  convincing  evidence  of  himself,  as  unquestion- 
ably he  doth  in  the  scriptures.  Nor  do  I  doubt  but  mul- 
titudes of  sober  persons,  trained  up  within  the  chinch, 
and  thereby  drawn  to  a  more  attentive  and  less  prejudi- 
cial perusal  of  tlie  scripture  revelation,  do,  upon  sundry 
occasions,  find  their  minds  affected  with  the  evidence  of 
God  in  them,  and  thereby  are  drawn  to  assent  to  them 
as  his  word,  though  not  in  a  due  manner,  and  that  even 
where  they  remain  strangers  unto  a  work  of  renovation. 
And  I  am  sure,  if  it  is  so,  it  will  leave  the  rejectors  of 
the  scriptures  remarkably  without  excuse. 

4.  Whether  some  transient  act  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
always  necessary  upon  the  mind,  to  draw  forth  even 
such  an  assent,  as  that  last  mentioned,  I  shall  not  deter- 
mine ;  that  in  some  cases  it  is  so,  is  not  to  be  doubted. 
The  faith  of  temporary  believers  undoubtedly  requhes 
such  an  action  as  its  cause,  and  where  any  thing  of  this 
evidence  affects  the  minds  of  persons,  at  present  deep- 

•  "  We  cannot  conceive  how  reason  should  be  prejudiced  by  the  advance* 
"  ment  of  the  rational  faculties  of  our  soxils  with  respect  unto  their  exercise 
"  toward  their  proper  objects  ;  vvhicli  is  all  we  assign  unto  the  work  of  th^ 
*'  Holy  Spirit  in  ihis  matter."    Dr.  Oisen  on  the  Spirit,  Preface,  page  9, 

43 


3'38  AN  ESSAY,  &c. 

ly  prejudiced,  as  they  were,  who  were  sent  to  apprehend 
Christ,  and  went  away  under  a  conviction,  thai  never  man 
spake  as  he  did ;  there  such  a  transient  work  of  the  Spi- 
rit of  God  seems  necessary  to  clear  their  minds  of  pre- 
judices, and  make  them  discern  the  evidences  of  a  Dei- 
ty :  But  whether  it  is  so  in  other  cases,  I  shall  not  con- 
clude positively. 

5.  But  were  it  granted.  That  faith,  that  is,  the  faculty 
or  power  of  believing,  which  is  nothing  else  save  the 
mind  of  man  considered  as  a  subject  capable  of  assent- 
ing to  testimony,  still  remains ;  and  that  though  woful- 
ly  impaired,  weakened  and  disabled,  it  yet  continues  in 
so  far  able  for  its  proper  office  or  work,  that  either  by  the 
assistance  of  some  transient  operation  of  God's  Spirit, 
breaking  in  some  measure  the  power  of  its  prejudices, 
and  fixing  it  to  the  consideration  of  its  proper  object,  or 
even  without  this,  upon  a  more  sedate,  sober,  less  preju- 
diced observation,  it  may,  though  less  perfectly,  perceive 
the  impress  and  evidences  of  God  appearing  in  the  re- 
velations he  makes  of  himself,  and  that  thereon  it  may 
be  actually  so  afl'ected,  as  to  give  some  sort  of  assent, 
and  reach  some  conviction,  that  it  is  God  who  speaks  r 
\Vere,  I  say,  all  this  granted,  it  will  amount  to  no  great 
jiiatter ;  since  it  is  certain,  that  every  sort  of  faith  or 
assent  to  divine  testimony,  is  not  sufficient  to  answer  our 
dut}%  obtain  acceptance  with  God,  and  turn  to  our  sal- 
vation. Nor  is  it  so  much  of  our  concernment  to  in- 
quue  after  that  sort  of  faith  which  fails  of  answering 
these  ends ;  and  therefore  I  shall  dip  no  further  into  any 
questions  about  any  faith  of  this  sort,  or  our  ability  for  it. 

6.  It  is  more  our  interest  to  understand  what  that  faith 
is,  which  God  requires  us  to  give  to  his  word,  which  he 
will  accept  of,  and  which  therefore  will  turn  to  our  sal- 
vation ;  and  whence  we  have  the  power  and  ability  for 
this  faith.  Of  these  things  therefore  we  shall  discourse 
at  more  length  in  the  next  chapter  designed  to  ttiat  end. 


CHAP.    n. 

Wherein  the  Nature  of  that  Faith,  which  in  Duty  we  ar& 
obliged  to  give  to  the  Word  of  God,  our  ohUgatioa  to, 
and  our  ability  for  answering  our  Duty,  are  inquired 
into. 

WE  have  above  insinuated,  and  of  itself  it  is  plain, 
that  every  sort  of  faith  or  assent  to  divine  testimony  an- 
swers not  our  duty,  nor  will  amount  to  that  regard  which 
we  owe  to  the  authority  and  truth  of  God,  when  he 
speaks,  or  writes  his  mind  to  us.  We  must  therefore,  in 
the  first  place,  inquire  into  the  nature  of  that  faith  which 
will  do  so.  Nor  is  there  any  other  way  wherein  this  may 
better  be  cleared,  than  by  attending  to  the  plain  scrip- 
ture accounts  of  it. 

Nows  if  we  look  into  the  scriptures,  we  find,  1.  The 
apostle  Paul,  1  Thess.  ii.  13.  when  he  is  commending 
the  Thessalonians,  and  blessing  God  on  their  behalf,  gives 
a  clear  description  of  that  faith  which  is  due  unto  the 
word  of  God.  For  this  cause  also,  says  he,  thank  we  God 
without  ceasing,  because  ivhen  ye  received  the  word  of  God 
which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word  of 
men  ;  but  (as  it  is  truth)  the  word  of  God  which  effectual- 
ly 7Vorketh  also  in  you  that  believe.  If  we  advert  to  this 
description,  we  cannot  but  see  these  things  in  it.  First, 
That  some  special  sort  of  assent  is  here  intended.  The 
Thessalonians  did  not  think  it  enough  to  give  such  cre- 
dit, or  yield  such  an  assent  as  is  due  to  the  word  of  men, 
even  the  best  of  men.  Secondly,  In  particular  it  is  plain, 
that  such  an  assent  is  intended  as  some  way  answers  the 
unquestionable  firmness  of  the  testimony  of  the  God  of 
trutli,  which  is  the  ground  whereon  it  leans.  Thirdly, 
It  is  obvious,  that  somewhat  more  is  intended  than  a 
mere  assent,  of  whatsoever  sort  it  is :  The  words  plainly 
import  such  an  assent,  or  receiving  of  the  word  of  God, 
as  is  attended  with  that  reverence,  (submission  of  soul,  re- 


340  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

sii^natlon  of  will  and  subjection  of  conscience,  that  is 
due  to  God. 

This  the  use  of  the  word  elsewhere  in  scripture  strong- 
ly pleads  for,  and  the  manner  wherein  the  apostle  ex- 
presses }}imself  here  is  sufricient  to  convince  any  man 
tl  at  no  less  is  intended.  1.  Less  than  this  would  scarce 
have  been  a  ground  for  the  apostle's  thanksi^iving  to 
God,  and  for  his  doing  this  without  ceasing.  And  indeed 
we  find  that  this  expression  elsewhere  used  imports  not 
only  people's  assent  to,  but  their  consent  and  approba- 
tion of  the  word  of  God;  yea,  and  their  embracing  in 
piactice  the  gospel.  Acts  viii.  14.  and  xi.  1.  2.  We  are 
told  FXeb.  xi.  1.  that  is  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen, — 
f^iypc"^,  which  Ave  render  evidence^  signifies  properly  a 
convincing  demonstrationy  standing  firm  against,  and  re* 
pelling  tlie  force  of  contrary  objections.  Faith  then  is 
such  an  assent  as  this.  It  is  a  firm  conviction  leaning  upon 
the  strongest  bottom,  able  to  stand  against,  and  withstand 
the  strongest  objections.  3.  The  apostle  more  particu- 
larly'^ describes  tiie  groimd  whereon  it  rests,  or  what  tliat 
demonstrative  evidence  is,  whereon  this  conviction  is 
founded,  and  that  both  negatively  and  positively,  1  Cor. 
ii.  5.  It  stands  not  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power 
of  God.  That  is,  it  neither  leans  upon  the  eloquence, 
nor  reasonings  of  men,  but  upon  the  pow  erfid  evidence 
of  the  Spirit's  demonstration,  as  it  is  in  the  verse  before. 

Having  given  this  sliort  and  plain  account  of  faith  from 
the  scriptiue,  we  must  in  the  next  place  prove,  that  in 
duty  we  are  bound  to  receive  the  word  of  God  w  ith  a 
faith  of  this  soil.  Nor  w  ill  this  be  found  a  matter  of  any 
difficulty  :  For, 

1.  The  scriptures  hold  themselves  forth  to  us  as  the 
Oracles  of  God,  which  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  spirit  of  God,  and  w  rote  by  divine  in- 
spiration, and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  speak  to  us  by 
them.  Now  the  very  light  of  nature  teaches  us,  that 
when  God  utters  oracles,  speaks  and  av rites  his  mind  to 
us,  we  are  in  duty  bound  readily  to  assent,  give  entire 
credit  to,  and  rely  with  the  firmest  confidence  on  the 
veracity  of  the  speaker ;  and  furtlier,  we  are  obliged  to 
attend  to  wliat  is  spoken  w^ith  the  deepest  v(Tieiati(>n, 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      341 

reverence  and  subjection  of  soul,  and  yield  an  unre- 
served practical  compliance  with  every  intimation  of  his . 
mind. 

2.  The  scriptures  were  written  for  this  very  end.  That 
jve  might  so  believe  them  as  to  have  life  by  them,  John  xx. 
30.  31.  And  again,  Rom.  xvi.  25,  26.  The  scriptures  of 
the  projyhets  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  everlast- 
ing Gody  are  said  to  be  made  known  to  all  nations  for  the 
obedience  of  faith.  Ceilainly  then  we  are  in  duty  obliged 
to  yield  tiiis  obedience  of  faith, 

3.  The  most  dreadfid  judgments,  yea  eternal  ruin, 
and  that  of  the  most  intolerable  sort,  are  threatened 
against  those,  who  do  not  thus  receive  the  words  of  God 
from  his  servants,  whether  by  word  or  writ,  is  no  mat- 
ter. Whosoever  shall  not  receive  you,  nor  hear  your  words^ 
when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city,  shake  oj^  the  dust 
of  your  feet.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  It  shall  be  more  tolera- 
ble for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  than  for  that  ci- 
ty,  Matt.  X.  14.  15.  Accordingly  w^e  find  the  apostles 
preach  the  word  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Acts  xiii.  demand 
acceptance  of  it  both  of  .lews  and  Gentiles,  and  upon 
their  refusal,  they  testily  against  them  in  this  way  of  the 
Lord's  appointment,  ver.  51.  And  all  this  severity  they 
used  witliout  offering  mu'acles,  or  any  other  proof  for 
their  doctrine,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  besides  the  au- 
thoiitative  proposal  of  it  in  tlie  name  of  God. 

4.  We  find  the  apostle,  in  the  words  above  quoted, 
commending  the  7'hessalonians  for  receiving  the  word  in 
this  manner,  which  is  proof  enough,  that  it  was  then-  du- 
ty to  do  so. 

This  much  being  clear,  it  remains  yet  to  be  inquired. 
Whence  we  have  power  or  ability  for  yielding  such  an 
assent,  whether  it  is  natural  or  supernatural  ?  Now  if 
we  consult  the  scripture  upon  this  head,  we  find, 

1.  That  this  ability  to  believe  and  receive  the  things 
of  God  to  our  salvation  and  his  glory,  is  expressly  de- 
nied to  unrenewed  man,  or  man  in  his  natural  estate,  2 
Tiies.  iii.  2.  u4ll  men  have  not  faith:  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him :  Neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned^  Jolm  viii.  47 — 


342  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

Ye  therefore  hear  not  God's  words,  because  ye  are  not  of 
God.  -^ 

2.  This  is  expressly  denied  to  be  of  our  selves,  and 
asserted  to  be  a  supernatual  gift  of  God,  Eph.  ii.  8.  By 
•grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  your- 
selves, it  is  the  gift  of  God. 

3.  The  production  of  it  is  expressly  ascribed  unto 
God.  He  it  is  that  fulfils  in  his  people  the  work  of  faith 
with  power,  2  Thes.  i.  1 1.  He  it  is  that  gives  tliem,  that 
is,  that  enables  them,  on  the  behalf  of  Christ  to  believe  and 
siiffer  for  his  name,  Phil.  i.  29.  It  is  one  of  tJie  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  Gal.  v.  22.  And  of  it  Christ  is  the  aidhor,  Heb. 
xii.  2.  The  further  proof  and  vindication  of  this  truth  I 
refer  to  polemical  writers. 

But  hei^  possibly  some  may  inquire.  How  it  can  be 
our  duty  thus  to  believe  the  scriptures,  since  we  are  not 
of  ourselves  able  to  do  so  ?  In  answer  to  this,  I  shall  on- 
ty  say,  1.  The  very  light  of  nature  shews,  that  it  is  our 
duty  to  yield  perfect  obedience,  yet  certain  it  is  we  are 
unable  to  answer  to  our  duty.  2.  The  scriptures  plainly 
require  us  to  serve  God  acceptably  ivith  reverence  and  god- 
ly fear,  and  with  the  same  breath  tells  us,  we  must  have 
grace  to  enable  us  to  do  it,  Heb.  xii.  28.     3.  We  have 
destroyed  ourselves,  and  by  our  ow  n  fault  impaired  the 
powers  God  originally  gave  us,  and  brought  ourselves 
under  innumerable  prejudices  and  other  evils,  wfiereby 
the  entrance  of  light  is  obstructed :  but  this  cannot  rea- 
sonably prejudge  God's  right  to  demand  credit  to  his 
word,  on  which  he  lias  impressed  sufficient  objective  evi- 
dence of  himself,  which  any  one  that  has  not  thus  faulti- 
ly lost  his  eyes,  may  upon  attention  discern.     4.  It  is 
therefore  our  duty  to  justify  God,  blame  ourselves,  and 
wait  in  the  way  he  has  prescribed,  for  that  girice  which 
is  necessary  to  enable  us;  and  if  thus  we  do  his  will,  or  at 
least  aim  at  it,  we  have  no  reason  to  despau',  but  may 
expect  in  due  time  to  be  enabled  to  understand  and 
linow,  whether  these  truths  are  of  God,  or  they  who 
spoke  them  did  it  of  themselves,  John  vii.  17.    Though 
yet  we  cannot  claim  this  as  what  is  our  due. 

From  what  has  hitherto  been  discoiu'sed,  it  is  evident, 
iliat  this  liiif  h,  whereby  we  assent  to  the  scripture,  is  su- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      343 

pernatural,  or  may  be  so  called  upon  a  two-fold  account: 
1.  Because  the  power  or  ability  for  it,  is  supernaturally 
given ;  and  2.  The  evidence  whereon  it  rests  is  superna- 
tural. 

In  this  chapter,  we  have  directly  concerned  omselvest 
only  in  the  proof  of  the  first  of  these,  viz.  That  our  abili- 
ty thus  to  believe  is  supernaturally  given ;  and  this  has  been 
tfie  constant  doctrine  of  the  chinch  of  God,  which  we 
might  confirm  by  testimonies  of  all  soils,  did  our  design- 
ed brevity  allow.* 

But  our  modern  Rationalists  do  resolutely  oppose 
this.  The  author  of  a  late  Atheistical  pamphlet,  that 
truly  subverts  all  religion,  may  be  allowed  to  speak  for 
all  the  rest ;  for  he  says  no  more  than  what  they  do  as- 
sent to :  He  tells  us,  "  That  when  once  the  mystery  of 
"  Christ  .Tesus  was  revealed,  even  human  reason  Avas 
"  able  to  behold  and  confess  it ;  not  that  grace  had  al- 
"  tered  the  eye  sight  of  reason,  but  that  it  had  drawn  the 
"  object  nearer  to  it."t  To  the  same  purpose  speak 
the  Socinians ;  Schlichtingius  tells  us,  "  Man  endued 
"  with  understanding  is  no  otherwise  blind  in  divine 
"  mysteries,  than  as  lie  who  hath  eyes,  but  sits  in  the 
"  dark :  remove  the  darkness,  and  bring  Imn  a  light  and 
"  he  will  see.  The  eyes  of  a  man  are  his  imderstand- 
"  ing,  the  light  is  Christ's  doctrine."  To  the  same  pur- 
pose doth  the  paradoxical  Bclgic  Exercitator,  that  sets 
up  for  philosophy  as  the  interpreter  of  the  scriptures, 
express  himself  frequently.  Nor  is  his  pretended  an- 
swerer Volzogius  differently  minded;  though  he  is  not 
so  constant  to  his  opinion  as  the  other.  J 

But  these  gentlemen  may  talk  as  tliey  please,  we  are 
not  obliged  to  believe  them  in  this  matter.  The  scrip- 
tures plainly  teaching  us,  that  our  minds  are  blind,  our 
understandings  impaired  and  obstructed  in  discerning 
the  evidence  of  truth,  by  prejudices  arising  from  tlie  en- 

*  See  iVfy.  Wilson's  Scripture's  jjenuine  Interpreter  asserted.  Appen.  page 
4,  5,  &c. 

f  Treatise  on  niiman  Reason,  page  58,  published  1674,  and  to  the  credit  of 
the  church  of  England,  with  an  Imprimatur,  quote^l  by  Mr.  Wilson,  ubi  8Upr»ij 
fjagc  13. 

WiTsQn's  ibrd,  page  7;  H'. 


344  AN  ESSAY,  &c. 

mity  of  the  will,  and  depravity  of  the  affections.  Nor 
were  it  difficult  to  demonstrate  from  sciiptuie,  that  no 
man  can  believe,  or  understand  the  word  of  God  ariglit, 
tDl,  1.  The  spirit  of  God  repair  this  defect  of  the  faculty, 
or  gives  us  an  understandings  1  John  v.  20.  2.  Bi  eak 
the  power  of  that  enmity  that  rises  up  against  the  truths 
of  God  as  foolishness.  3.  Cure  the  disorder  of  our  af- 
fections, that  blinds  our  minds.  And  4.  Fix  our  minds, 
otherwise  vain  and  unstable,  to  attend  to  what  God 
speaks,  and  the  evidence  he  gives  of  himself.  But  tliis 
is  not  what  we  principally  design,  and  therefore  we  shall 
insist  no  longer  upon  this  head :  Our  present  question  is 
not  about  our  ability  or  power  to  believe,  but  the  ground 
whereon  w^e  do  believe.  What  has  been  spoken  of  the 
former  hitherto,  is  only  to  prepare  the  w  ay  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  latter,  to  which  we  now  proceed. 


CHAP.    III. 

The  Ground,  or  the  formal  Reason,  whereon  Faith  assents 
to  the  Scriptures  is  inquired  after ;  the  Rationalist's 
Opinion  about  it,  and  particularli/  as  stated  hy  Mr, 
Locke  in  his  Book  on  Human  Under  standing ,  is  pro- 
posed and  considered. 

THOUGH  we  have  spoken  somewhat  concerning 
our  ability  to  believe  the  word  of  God,  and  the  super- 
natural rise  thereof,  in  the  preceding  chapter ;  wherein 
we  have  offered  our  thoughts  of  that  which  goes 
under  the  name  of  subjective  light ;  yet  this  is  not  the 
question  mainly  intended  in  these  papers.  That  which 
we  aim  more  particularly  to  inquire  after,  is  the  ground 
whereon  the  mind  thus  subjectively  enlightened,  or  by 
the  spirit  of  God  disposed,  fitted  and  enabled  to  discern 
and  assent  to  divine  revelations,  builds  its  assent,  and 
wlierein  it  rests  satisfied,  or  acquiesces. 

The  question  then  before  us  is  this.  What  is  th?iigrou7id 
whereon,  or  reason  which  moves  and  determines  us  to 
receive  the  scriptures  as  the  word  of  God  1  What  is  the 
formal  reason  whereon  our  faith  rests  ?  Or  what  is  the 
proper  answer  to  that  question.  Wherefore  do  ye  believe 
the  scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  receive  truths 
therein  proposed  as  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  man  ? 

It  is  in  general  owned  by  all,  who  believe  the  scrip- 
tures to  be  a  divine  revelation,  that  the  authority,  truth 
and  veracity  of  God,  who  is  truth  itself,  and  can  neither 
deceive,  nor  be  deceived,  is  the  ground  whereon  we  re- 
ceive and  assent  to  propositions  of  truth  therein  reveal- 
ed. 

But  this  general  answer  satisfies  not  the  question  : 
For,  though  it  is  of  natural  and  unquestionable  evi- 
dence, that  God's  testimony  is  true,  cannot  but  be  so, 
and  as  such  must  be  received ;  yet  certain  it  is,  that  di- 
vine testimony  abstractly  considered,  cannot  be  the 
44 


346  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

ground  of  our  assent  unto  any  truth  in  particular  :  But 
that  whereon  we  must  rest,  and  whereon  our  faith  must 
lean,  is,  "  The  testimony  of  God  to  it,  evidencing  itself, 
"  or  as  it  gives  evidence  of  itself  imto  the  mind."  The 
knot  of  the  question  then  lies  heie,  "  What  is  that  evi- 
"  dence  of  God's  speaking  or  giving  testimony  to  truths 
"  supernaturally  revealed,  whereby  the  mind  is  satisfied 
"  that  God  is  the  revealer  ?  Or  when  God  speaks,  or  in- 
"  timates  any  truth  to  us,  how,  or  in  Avhat  way  doth  he 
"  evidence  to  us,  that  he  is  the  revealer,  what  ground  is 
"  it  whereon  we  are  satisfied  as  to  this  precise  point  ?" 

Now  whereas  there  are  persons  of  three  sorts,  wiio 
may  be  called  to  assent  to  divine  revelations,  the  ques- 
tion proposed  may  be  considered  Avith  respect  to  each 
of  them. 

1.  The  question  may  be  moved  concerning  those  per- 
sons to  whom  the  scripture  revelations  were  originally 
made  ;  and  as  to  them  it  may  be  inquired.  When  God 
did  reveal  his  mind  imto  the  prophets,  what  was  that  evi- 
dencCj  what  were  those  Tf  xa*^/"**  or  certain  signs,  whereby 
they  were  infallibly  assured,  that  the  propositions  they 
found  impressed  upon  their  minds,  w  ere  from  God  ? 

2.  As  to  the  persons  to  whom  they  did  immediately 
reveal  these  truths,  it  may  be  questioned,  W^hat  evi- 
dences they  had  to  move  them  to  assent,  and  give  faith 
to  those  truths  which  were  proposed  to  them  as  divine 
revelations  ?  On  what  ground  did  they  rest  satisfied,  that 
really  they  were  so  ? 

3.  Whereas  we,  who  now  live,  neither  had  these  reve- 
lations made  to  us  originally,  nor  heard  them  from  the 
persons  to  whom  they  were  so  given  ;  but  being  com- 
prised and  put  together  in  the  Bible,  they  are  offered  to 
us  as  a  divine  revelation,  and  we  are  in  duty,  upon  pain  of 
God's  displeasure  in  case  of  refusal,  called  and  requued 
to  believe,  and  assent  to  whatever  is  therein  revealed,  as 
the  word  of  God  and  not  of  man  ;  hereon  it  may  be  moved, 
What  is  that  evidence  which  this  book  gives  of  itself, 
that  it  is  of  God,  whereon  our  minds  may  rest  assured 
that  really  it  is  so  ? 

As  to  this  question,  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  first 
soil  of  persons  mentioned,  we  shall  not  dip  much  into 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.         347 

it ;  all  I  shall  say  is  this,  ifi  the  words  of  the  judicious 
and  learned  Dr.  Owen,  "  In  the  inspirations  of  the  Ho- 
"  ly  Spirit,  and  his  actings  on  the  minds  of  holy  men  of 
*'  old,  he  gave  them  infallible  assurance  that  it  was  him- 
"  self  alone  by  whom  they  were  acted,  Jer.  xiii,  28.  If 
"  any  shall  ask  by  what  rexfcyiptct.  or  infallible  tokens  they 
"  might  know  assuredly  the  inspirations  of  the  Holy 
"  Spirit,  and  be  satisfied  with  such  a  persuasion  as  was 
"  not  liable  to  mistake,  tliat  tiiey  were  not  unposed 
"  upon  ?  I  must  say  plainly.  That  I  cannot  tell ;  for 
"  these  things  whereojf  we  have  no  experience."* 

There  is  one  thing  dropt  as  to  this  matter  by  the  in- 
genious Mr.  Locke,  that  deseives  some  animadversion. 
Though  he  delivers  nothing  positively  about  those  evi- 
dences which  the  prophets  had,  yet  negatively  he  tells 
us,  that  the  prophets'  assurance  did  not  at  lest  solely 
arise  from  the  revelations  themselves,  or  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit  impressing  them  upon  their  minds,  which 
he  calls  the  internal  light  of  assurance :  But  that  beside 
this,  to  satisfy  them  fully  that  those  impressions  were 
from  God,  external  signs  were  requisite  ;t  and  this  he  en- 
deavors to  prove  from  their  desuing  coiifirmatory  signs, 
as  Abraliam  and  others  did ;  and  from  God's  giving  such 
signs  undesired.  To  this  purpose  his  appearing  to  Moses 
in  the  bush,  is  by  our  author  taken  notice  of.  As  to  the 
opinion  itself,  I  look  on  it  as  highly  injurious  to  the  ho- 
nor of  divine  revelation,  and  I  take  the  ground  whereon 
it  is  founded  to  be  weak  and  inconclusive :  For,  1 .  neither 
Mr.  Locke,  nor  any  for  him,  shall  ever  be  able  to  prove, 
that  these  divinely  inspued  persons  always  required  orgot 
such  coiifirmatory  signs  extrinsical  to  the  revelation  or  in- 
spiration itself;  yea,  it  is  manifest,  that  for  most  part 
they  neither  sought  them  nor  got  them.  2.  When  they 
did  seek  or  get  them,  Mr.  Locke  cannot  prove,  that  ei- 
ther God  or  they  found  them  necessary  for  the  present 
assiuahce  of  the  person's  own  minds ;  as  if  that  internal 
light  of  assurance,  to  use  Mr.  Locke's  words,  had  not  of 

*  Dr.  Owen  on  the  Spirit,  Book  2.  Chap.  1.  §.  10.  pa^.  104. 
t  Humw  Uuderstandine,  Book  4.  Chap.  12.  f.  15.  page  593.  Edition  5th^ 
1706. 


348  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

itself,  while  it  abode,  been  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  mind 
fully,  that  it  was  God  who  was  dealing  with  it,  or  reveal- 
ing himself  to  it.  It  is  plain,  that  other  reasons  of  their 
dt  siring  such  signs  may  be  assigned.  When  the  matters 
revealed  were  things  at  a  distance,  which  requued  some 
extraordinary  out-goings  of  God's  power  to  eflectuate 
them,  in  that  case  tliey  desired,  and  God  condescended 
to  gi  ant  to  them  some  extraordinary  signs,  not  to  assure 
them  that  God  was  speaking  unto  them,  but  to  strength- 
en their  convictions  of  the  sufficiency  of  God's  power,  for 
enabling  to  do  what  he  required  of  them,  if  it  was  difficult, 
or  accomplishing  what  he  promised  to  them  in  defiance  of 
the  greatest  opposition.  Sometimes  divine  revelations  were 
promises  of  things  at  a  distance,  that  were  not  to  be  ac- 
tually accomplisl:ed  till  after  a  long  tract  of  time,  and 
over  many  inconvenient  obstructions;  in  this  case  they 
were  obliged  to  believe  these  promises,  and  wait  in  the 
faith  of  them,  even  when  that  light,  that  first  assured 
them,  was  gone,  and  such  evidences  or  signs  might  be  of 
use  to  them  to  adhere  unto  the  assent  fonnerly  given 
upon  that  supernatural  evidence,  that  at  first  accompa- 
nied the  revelation.  Such  siffns  then  mioht  be  of  use  to 
strengthen  the  remembrance  of  tliat  first  evidence,  which 
they  had  when  the  revelations  were  first  imparted  to 
them.  These  and  other  reasons  of  a  like  nature  might 
sufficiently  account  for  then-  desuing  these  signs,  and 
God's  giving  them :  But  as  has  been  said,  we  intend  not 
a  determination  or  full  decision  of  this  question. 

We  shall  only  consider  the  question  with  respect  un- 
to the  two  last  soil  of  persons.  And  as  to  those  who 
heard,  or  had  divine  revelations  immediately  from  in- 
spired persons,  our  rational  divines  seem  positive,  that 
the  evidence  whereon  they  assented  to  what  they  deli- 
vered as  the  mind  of  God,  consisted  in,  or  did  result  from 
the  mu'acles  they  wrought,  and  other  external  signs,  or 
proofs,  which  they  gave  of  theii'  mission  froin  God. 
Monsieur  L'Clerk,  in  his  Emendations  and  Additions  to 
Hammond  on  the  New  Testament,  gives  us  this  gloss  on 
1  Cor.  ii,  5.  "  Paul,  says  he,  would  have  the  Corinthians 
"  believe  liim,  not  as  a  philosopher  proposing  probabili- 
**  ties  to  them,  but  as  the  messenger  of  God,  who  had 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.     349 

"  received  commandment  from  him,  to  deliver  to  thera 
**  tliose  tiutlis  which  he  preached,  and,  that  he  thus  re- 
**  ceived  them,  he  did  shew  by  the  miracles  he  thus 
"  vvrf  Ui;iit."  And  a  little  after  he  adds,  "  He  whose  faith 
"  leans  upon  miracles  wrought  by  God's  power,  his 
"  fajth  is  grounded  upon  the  divine  power,  the  cause  of 
"  t[.ese  divine  miiacles."  As  to  this  opinion  itself,  I 
shall  express  myself  more  particularly  just  now :  But 
as  to  Monsieur  L'Clerc's  inference  from  this  text,  he 
had  no  manner  of  ground  for  it.  Let  us  but  look  into  the 
veise  before,  and  there  we  find  the  apostle  telling  the 
Corinthians,  tiiat  in  his  preaching  he  avoided  tlie  en- 
iicing  words  of  mail's  wisdom,  and  delivered  his  message 
in  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  power.  Upon 
the  back  of  this  5th  verse,  he  tells  them,  his  design  in 
doing  so  was,  that  their  faith  might  not  stand  in  the  wis- 
dom of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God,  that  is,  on  the  pow- 
erful demonstration  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  mentioned  in 
the  foregoing  verse.  How  Monsieur  L'Clerc  came  to 
dream  of  miracles,  and  fetch  them  in  here,  while  the 
scope  and  every  circumstance  of  the  text  stood  in  the 
way  of  this  exposition,  I  cannot  divine;  for  nothing  is 
more  foreign  and  remote  from  the  sense  of  this  place. 
Il  tlie  author  had  followed  tlie  old  approved  interpreter 
of  scripture,  I  mean  the  scripture  itself,  and  had  looked 
into  tiie  foregoing  verse  and  context,  he  had  given  us 
a  more  genuine  account :  But  philosophy  now  set  up 
for  an  interpretei',  I  had  almost  said  a  perverter,  did 
certainly  lead  him  into  this  violent  and  ridiculous  gloss. 
But  to  come  to  the  matter  itself. 

Miracles  can  be  no  other  the  groimd  of  any  assent, 
than  as  they  afford  ground  for,  or  may  be  made  use  of 
as  the  medium  of  an  argument,  whereby  tlie  divine  mis- 
sion of  the  worker  is  concluded  and  proven.  This  then 
must  be  the  opinion  of  these  gentlemen.  That  they  who 
heard  the  apostles  or  prophets,  could  not  be  satisfied  in 
their  mmds,  that  what  they  said  was  divinely  revealed, 
until  they  were  convinced  of  it  by  proofs  drawn  from 
miracles  or  signs,  wrought  by  the  preacher ;  and  that 
this  is  not  merely  my  conjecture,  is  evident  from  the  ac- 
counts we  have  of  theii'  opinions  and  hypothesis,  where- 


350  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

of  this  is  reckoned  as  a  principal  one,  that  the  mind  of 
man  being  rational,  cannot  be  moved  but  by  a  rational 
impression,  that  is,  by  the  force  of  effectual  reasons.* 
And  to  the  same  purpose  we  shall  find  Mr.  Locke  ex- 
pressing himself  by  and  by. 

Upon  this  hypothesis,  it  is  evident,  1.  That  if  a  Hea- 
then came  into  a  Christian  assembly,  and  heard  Paul 
preaching,  or  even  Jesus  Christ  himself,  if  he  had  never 
seen  them  work  any  sign  or  miracle,  he  would  not  be 
obliged  to  believe  their  doctrine.  2.  If  the  apostles 
preached  to  those  among  Avhom  they  wrought  no  mira- 
cles, gave  no  such  outward  signs,  such  persons  could 
not  be  obliged  to  believe  them,  the  evidence  whereon 
such  a  belief  is  founded  being  denied.  3.  They  who 
heard  them,  and  saw  the  miracles,  could  not  be  obliged 
to  assent  unto  their  doctrine,  until  by  reasoning  they 
would  have  time  to  satisfy  themselves,  how  far  natural 
causes  might  go  towards  the  production  of  such  effects, 
and  how  far  these  things,  admitting  them  to  be  superna- 
tural, could  go  toward  the  proof  of  this — that  what  they 
delivered  was  from  God.  4.  If  there  was  any  among 
tliem  so  dull,  as  not  to  be  capable  to  judge  of  these  nice 
points,  I  do  not  see  how,  upon  these  principles,  they 
could  be  obliged  to  believe.  These  and  the  like  are  not 
strained  consequences  ;  for  it  is  undeniable,  that  our  ob- 
ligation to  believe  arises  from  the  proposal  of  due  ob- 
jective evidence ;  if  this  is  wanting  no  man  can  be  obliged 
to  believe. 

As  to  us  who  neither  conversed  with  the  inspued  per- 
sons, to  whom  such  revelations  were  originally  given, 
nor  saw  the  miracles  they  ^vrought,  we  are  told  by  those 
Rationalists,  That  we  have  historical  proof,  that  there 
were  such  persons,  that  they  wrote  these  revelations 
which  we  now  have,  and  that  they  WTOUght  such  mira- 
cles in  confirmation  of  their  mission  and  doctrine  ;  and 
upon  the  evidence  of  these  proofs  we  must  rest,  they 
will  allow  us  no  other  bottom  for  our  faith.  Hence  Mon- 
sieur Le'  Clerc  tells  us,  "  That  whatever  faith  is  this 
"  day  in  the  world  among  Christians,  depends  upon  the 
"  testimony  of  men." 

*  Spanhem.  Elench.  Controversiarum,  pag-.  320.  Edition  1694. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      351 

Among  many  who  have  embraced  this  opinion,  Mr. 
Locke  in  his  Essay  on  Human  Understandings  has  de- 
clared liimself  to  this  purpose,  and  upon  several  accounts 
he  deserves  to  be  taken  special  notice  of :  I  shall  there- 
fore represent  faithfully  and  shortly  his  opinion,  and  the 
grounds  whereon  it  is  founded,  and  make  such  animad- 
versions upon  them,  as  may  be  necessary  for  clearing 
our  way.  His  opinion  you  may  take  in  the  ensuing  pro- 
positions. 

1.  When  he  is  speaking  of  the  different  grounds  of 
assent,  and  degrees  thereof,  he  says,  "  Besides  those  we 
"  have  hitherto  mentioned,  there  is  one  sort  of  proposi- 
"  tions  that  challenge  the  highest  degrees  of  our  assent 
"  upon  bare  testimony,  whether  the  thing  proposed 
"  agree  or  disagree  with  common  experience  and  the 
"  ordinary  course  of  things,  or  not.  The  reason  wliere- 
"  of  is,  because  the  testimony  is  of  such  an  one,  as  can- 
"  not  deceive  or  be  deceived,  and  that  is  of  God  him- 
"  self.  This  carries  with  it  assurance  beyond  doubt,  evi- 
"  dence  beyond  exception.  This  is  called  by  a  peculiar 
"  name,  revelation,  and  our  assent  to  it,  faith :  Which  as 
"  absolutely  determines  our  minds,  and  as  perfectly  ex- 
"  eludes  all  wavering  as  our  knowledge  itself."^ 

2.  But  notwithstanding,  he  tells  us  in  the  very  same 
paragraph,  "  That  our  assurance  of  truths  upon  this  tes- 
timony," or  to  give  his  own  words,  "  Our  assent  can 
"  be  rationally  no  higher  than  the  evidence  of  its  being 
"  a  revelation,  and  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  ex- 
"  pressions  it  is  delivered  in."  That  is,  as  he  himself 
explains  it,  "If  the  reasons  proving  it  to  be  a  revelation 
"  are  but  probable,  our  assiu'ance  amounts  but  unto  a 
"  probable  conjecture." 

He  distinguishes  betwixt  traditional  and  original  re- 
velation. By  the  last  of  these,  says  he,  "  I  mean  that  first 
"  impression  which  is  made  immediately  by  God  on  the 
"  mind  of  any  man,  to  which  we  cannot  set  any  bounds ; 
"  and  by  the  other,  those  impressions  delivered  over  to 
"  others  in  words,  and  the  ordinary  ways  of  conveying 
"  our  conceptions  one  to  another."!    And  afterwards 

*  Human  Understand.  Book  4.  Cap.  IS.  §.  14.  pag.  564,  SQ3. 
y  Ibid.  §.  3.  patj.  582. 


352  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

speaking  of  immediate  or  original  revelation^  be  tells  us, 
"  That  no  evidence  of  our  faculties  by  whicli  we  re- 
"  ceive  such  revelations,  can  exceed,  if  equal,  tiie  cer- 
"  tainty  of  our  intuitive  knowledge."*  And  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph,  speaking  of  traditional  revelatioUf  he 
tells  us,  "  That  whatsoever  truth  we  come  to  the  clear 
"  discovery  of,  from  the  knowledge  and  contemplation  of 
"  our  own  ideas,  will  always  be  more  certain  to  us,  than 
"  those,  which  are  conveyed  by  traditional  revelation."t 

4.  He  tells  us,  "  That  true  light  in  the  mind  can  be 
"  no  other  but  the  evidence  of  tlie  truth  of  any  propo- 
"  sition,"  and  hereon  he  proceeds  to  tell  us,  "That  there 
"  can  be  no  other  evidence  or  light  in  the  mind,  about 
"  propositions  that  are  not  self-evident,  save  what  arises 
"  from  the  clearness  and  validity  of  those  proofs  upon 
"  which  it  is  received  :  And  he  adds,  "  That  to  talk  of 
*'  any  other  liglit  is  to  put  ourselves  in  the  dark,  or  in 
**  the  power  of  the  prince  of  darkness."J 

5.  In  the  next  paragraph  he  tells  us  plainly,  That 
there  is  no  way  of  knowing  any  revelation  to  be  from 
God,  but  by  "  rational  proofs  :  or  some  marks  in  which 
reason  cannot  be  mistaken.") 

6.  In  this  next  paragraph  he  tells  what  before  we  have 
taken  notice  of,  Tiiat  the  internal  light  of  assurance 
which  the  prophets  had,  was  not  sufficient  to  testify,  that 
the  truths  impressed  on  their  minds  were  from  God, 
without  other  signs.H 

Thus  far  of  Mr.  Locke's  opinion,  which  in  sum 
amounts  to  this,  "  That  even  the  original  revelations, 
had  not  in  them  intrinsic  evidence,  sufficient  to  assure 
them  on  whom  such  uupressions  were  made,  that  they 
were  from  God  ;  that  other  signs  were  necessary  to  sa- 
tisfy them  ;  and  that  others  who  received  such  revela- 
tions at  second  hand,  not  from  God  immediately,  but 
from  inspired  persons,  have  no  other  evidence  to  ground 
their  assent  on,  besides  that  which  results  from  argu- 
ments drawn  from  those  signs,  whereby  they  did  con- 
firm their  mission  ;  and  that  we  have  no  evidence  who 


*  Human  Understand.  Book  4.  Cap.  IS.  §•  5.  paj?.  583. 

t  Ibid.  Book  4.  Cap.  18.  §.  4.  pag".  582.        4  Ibid.  Book  4.  Cap.  19.  §.  13. 

§  Ibid.  §.  14.        II  Ibid.  §.  15. 


rut  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      353. 

saw  not  these  signs,  besides  that  of  the  historical  proofs, 
whereby  it  is  made  out,  tltat  the  persons  who  v/rote  ttie 
traditional  revelations  we  have,  wrought  such  signs  in 
confirmation  of  their  mission  from  God." 

It  is  worth  our  wliile  to  dwell  a  little  here,  and  more 
narrowly  consider  Mr.  Locke's  thoughts, and  the  grounds 
of  his  opinion  .;  I  sliall  tlierefore  otfer  a  few  observa- 
tions on  this  doctrine. 

I.  Mr.  Locke  in  his  first  proposition,  speaks  very  ho- 
norably of  divine  faith.  As  to  the  assent  or  act  of  faiths 
he  says,  "  That  it  is  an  assent  of  the  higiiest  degree  ;  as- 
•*  surance  without  doubt."  As  to  the  ground  of  it,  he 
says,  "  That  it  is  such  as  challenges  an  assent  of  the 
"  highest  degree ;"  that  it  is  "  evidence  beyond  e^fcep- 
"  tion."  Tiiese  are  goodly  words.  He  has  spoken  well 
in  all  that  he  has  said  I  Avisli  that  his  meaning  and  leart 
may  be  found  as  good  as  his  words.  All  is  not  gold  that 
glitters.  Let  us  then  look  a  little  more  narrowly  into  his 
meaning. 

To  find  it  out,  we  shall  suppose  that  God,  as  no  doubt 
he  did,  does  reveal  immediately  to  Paul  this  proposition, 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  Here  is  a  revelation  :  By  Paul 
it  is  assented  to.  Well  here  is  faith.  Now  in  his  be- 
lieving this  proposHion,  he  ma;y  be  said  to  assent  to  three 
things — That  what  God  says  is  true — Ttiat  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God — and,  Tliat  God  says  this  to  Paul.- 

Now,  I  ask  Mr.  Locke,  or  any  of  om'  rationalists  that 
are  of  liis  mind.  To  which  of  tliese  ttiree  is  it  that  Paul 
assents,  with  an  assent  "  of  the  highest  degree,"  and  of 
which  he  has  "  evidence  beyond  exception?" 

1.  Could  Mr.  Locke  only  mean,  that  we  have  the 
highest  assurance  of  this  general  verity,  That  God^s  tes- 
timony is  infallibly  true  ?  No,  sure.  For  the  assent  to 
tliis  truth  is  not  an  act  of  faith,  but  of  intuitive  know-^ 
ledge.  The  truth  itself  is  not  a  truth  here  divinely  re- 
vealed, but  of  natural  evidence.  This  is  not  so  much  in 
this  instance  expressly  assented,  as  supposed  known. 

2.  Doth  Mr.  Locke  mean,  tiiat  we  assent  to  this  pro- 
position, That  Jesus  is  the  son  of  God  !  Had  Paul  "  as- 
surance be^  ond  doubt"  and  "  evidence  beyond  excep- 

45 


354  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

lion,"  of  this  ?  But  surely  Mr.  Locke  knew  that  Pauf^ 
on  this  supposition,  does  not  at  all  assent  to  the  propo- 
sition, Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ahsolidely,  but  as  it  is  re- 
vealed. Well  then,  all  the  evidence  that  Paul  has  to 
ground  his  assent  upon,  is  the  evidence  of  this,  TlmtGod 
says  so  to  him.  If  then  the  evidence  of  God's  saying  so 
to  him  is  not  such  as  "  challenges  an  assent  of  the  high- 
est degree,"  Paul  cannot  have  the  "  highest  degree  of 
assurance"  of  that  proposition,  the  faith  whereof  leans 
entirely  upon  his  assurance  of  this,  That  God  has  reveal- 
ed it.  For  as  Mr.  Locke  says  very  truly  in  that  same 
paragraph,  "  Our  assurance  of  any  particular  truth,  that 
"  is,  the  matter  revealed,  can  never  rise  higher  in  degree 
"  than  our  assurance  of  this,  that  it  is  revealed."  If  then 
Paul  has  not  "  evidence  beyond  exception,"  that  God  re- 
veals the  proposition  we  speak  of  to  him,  he  can  never 
have  such  assurance  of  the  truth  of  the  proposition  ma- 
terially considered.  Wherefore, 

3.  Did  Mr.  Locke  think  in  this  case,  that  Paul  would 
have  evidence  beyond  exception,  challenging  the  high- 
est degree  of  assent,  and  thereon  assurance  beyond  doubt, 
or  of  the  highest  degree,  of  this,  that  God  did  in  very 
deed  say  to  Paul,  That  Jesus  is  the  So7i  of  God;  or  of 
this  truth.  That  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed.  It 
is  the  assent  to  this  proposition  that  in  proper  speaking 
is  faith.  The  assent  to  the  general  proposition  above- 
mentioned,  is  not  an  act  of  faith  at  all.  Nor  is  tlie  as- 
sent to  the  proposition  revealed,  materially  consideied, 
an  act  of  faith.  Faith  in  this  case,  is  only  the  assent  to 
that  proposition  as  revealed^  or  to  the  revelation  of  it.  If, 
then,  Paul  has  not  the  highest  evidence  for,  and  thereon 
(he  highest  assurance  of  this.  That  God  says  this  to  him, 
iiis  faith  can  never  be  said  to  be  the  highest  degree  of 
assurance  or  assent.  Thisthen  Mr.  Locke  must  mean,  or 
he  means  nothing.  But  yet  I  suppose  he  scarce  thought 
60  :  For,  L  He  tells  us  afterwards,  that  we  can  have  no 
evidence  for  receiving  any  truth  revealed,  that  can  ex- 
ceed, if  equal,  the  evidence  we  have  for  our  intuitive 
knowledge.  If  we  have  not  then  evidence,  equal  at  least 
to  that  which  we  have  for  our  intuitive  knowledge,  for 
vur  belief  of  God's  being  the  revealer,  or  that  he  speaks 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.       355 

to  us,  we  cannot  liave  the  highest  degree  of  assurance. 
2.  He  afterwards  tells  us,  that  we  have  no  evidence  for 
this,  that  this  or  that  truth  is  revealed  to  us  by  God,  but 
that  which  results  from  reason  or  arguments,  drawn  from 
marks,  whereby  we  prove  that  God  is  the  speaker ;  but 
Mr.  Locke  owns,  that  the  evidence  of  all  our  reasonings, 
is  still  short  of  that  which  we  have  for  our  intuitive 
knowledge.  Now  methinks  this  quite  overthrows  Mr. 
Locke's  goodly  concession.  With  what  consistency 
with  truth  or  himself,  Mr.  Locke  wrote  at  this  rate,  is 
left  to  others  to  judge. 

n.  Whatever  there  is  in  this  concession  yielded  in  fa- 
vor of  faith,  Mr.  Locke  afterwards  takes  care  that  we 
who  now  live  shall  not  be  the  better  for  it :  For  after- 
wards he  tells  us  plainly,  "  That  whatsoever  truth  we 
"  come  to  the  clear  discovery  of,  from  the  knoAvledge 
"  and  contemplation  of  our  ideas,  will  alwaysbe  more  cer- 
"  tain  to  us,  than  those  which  are  conveyed  by  tradi- 
"  tional  revelation."  We  have  no  revelation  at  this  day, 
but  that  which  Mr.  Locke  calls  traditional.  And  here 
it  is  plain,  that  Mr.  Locke  thinks  that  our  certainty  of 
any  truth  we  have  from  this,  is  inferior  in  degree  to  any 
sort  of  natural  knowledge,  whether  intuitive,  rational  or 
sensible. 

in.  It  is  manifest,  that  the  foundation  of  all  is,  what 
Mr.  Locke  teaches  in  the  fourth  position  above  mention- 
ed ;  wherein  he  tells  us,  "  That  to  talk  of  any  other  light 
"  in  the  mind,  beside  that  of  self-evidence,  reason,  and 
"  sense,  is  to  put  ourselves  in  the  dark."  I  have  added 
this  last,  "  the  light  of  sense,"  because  Mr.  Locke, 
though  he  mentions  it  not  here,  yet  elsewhere  he  admits 
it.  That  we  may  understand  Mr.  Locke's  assertion  ex- 
actly, it  must  be  observed,  that  writers,  when  they  treat 
of  tliis  subject,  usually  take  notice  of  a  tw^o-fold  light. 
There  is  subjective  lights  by  which  is  meant  either  our 
ability  to  perceive,  discern,  know  and  judge  of  objects, 
or  our  actual  knowledge,  assent,  &c.  Agam  there  is  ob- 
jective light,  by  which  they  mean  that  evidence  whence 
our  knowledge  results,  whereon  it  is  founded, and  w hich 
detennines  the  mind  to  assent  or  dissent.  Now  it  is  of 
this  last  that  Mr.  l*ocke  is  treating  in  his  chapter  of  Eiu 


356  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING. 

thusiasm,  from  whence  this  proposition  is  taken.  And 
his  opinion  is  this.  That  there  is  a  tlireefold  objective 
light,  which  is  a  real  and  just  ground  for  the  mind  to  as- 
sent on.  There  h,Jirst,  self-evidence^  which  is  the  ground 
of  our  intuitive  knowledge,  resulting  from  the  obvious 
agreement  or  disagreement  of  our  ideas,  appearing  up- 
on first  view  or  infuition,  wlien  they  are  compared.  6e- 
condly,  There  is  rational  light,  or  the  evidence  resulting 
from  arguments,  wherein  the  agreement  or  disagree- 
ment of  our  ideas  is  cleared  by  assuming  intermediate 
ideas,  by  the  help  of  which  our  mind  is  cleared,  as  to 
what  judgment  it  is  to  pass.  Thirdli/y  There  is  the  light 
pf  sense,  or  the  evidence  resulting  from  impressions 
made  on  our  minds  by  the  intervention  and  means  of  our 
organs  of  sense. 

But  besides  these,  he  admits  of  no  other  objective 
light  or  evidence,  that  may  be  a  just  ground  of  assent ; 
and  adds,  "  Tisat  to  talk  of  any  other,  is  to  put  our- 
"  selves  in  the  dark ;  yea,  in  the  power  of  the  prince  of 
"  of  darkness,  and  tarn  to  enthus  a  ts." 

This  grape  must  be  pressed,  tiiat  we  may  taste  its 
juice,  hoAv  it  relishes.  In  the  consideration  of  this  doc- 
trine delivered  by  Mr.  Locke,  we  shall  not  at  present 
inquire  whether  it  really  does  not  preclude  all  place  for 
faith,  properly  so  called.  This  in  the  issue  will  be  fur- 
ther cleared. 

But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  if  Mr.  Locke's  doc- 
trine hold,  certain  it  is,  that  either  faith,  if  there  is  such  a 
thing,  must  be  founded  on  one  of  those  three  grounds  of 
assent,  or  sorts  of  objective  light,  or  it  is  altogether  irra- 
tional. For  an  assent  not  founded  on,  and  to  which  we 
are  not  determined  by  real  objective  evidence,  is  brut- 
ish, irrational,  and  really  enthusiastic,  as  being  no  reason 
or  ground:  And  besides  these  three  soils  of  grounds, 
Mr.  Locke  admits  of  none.  Faith,  therefore,  must  be 
founded  either  on  one  or  the  other  of  them,  or  it  must 
want  all  reason  for  it. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  observed.  That  Mr.  Locke's  taking 
eelf-evidence  for  tljat  which  is  immediately  perceptible 
vvithoiit  the  intervention  of  any  intermediate  ideas,  by 
the  natural  power  of  our  intelleclural  faculties,  not  as- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRITE  FAITH.      357 

sisted,  renewed,  elevated  and  influenced  by  any  super- 
natural influence ;  and  taking  sensible  evidence  for  that 
wljicli  is  conveyed  by  the  intervention  of  bodily  organs, 
from  corporeal  substances,  cannot  be  thought  to  make 
either  of  these  the  ground  of  faith  to  the  testimony  of 
God.  And  therefore  it  must  have  no  reason  save  that 
rational  evidence,  which  makes  the  middle  sort  of  objec- 
tive light.  But  I  need  not  spend  time  in  proving  this, 
since  it  is  no  more  than  what  is  taught  us  in  the  fifth 
proposition  abovementioned. 

This  opinion  tims  far  explained  is  indeed  the  sum,  and 
contains  the  force  of  what  is  pleaded,  or,  for  ought  I 
know,  can  be  pleaded  for  the  judgment  of  our  Rational- 
ists. We  shall  therefore  weigh  the  matter  more  serious- 
ly, and  proceed  by  some  plain  steps  in  the  ensuing  pro- 
positions. 

1.  "If  good  and  solid  reasons  can  be  produced  for 
"  proof  of  anotlier  sort  of  objective  light  or  evidence, 
"  besides  those  three  mentioned  by  Mr.  Locke,  it  must 
**  be  admitted,  though  we  should  not  be  able  to  give  a 
"  satisfying  account  of  its  nature,  and  other  concern- 
"  ments." 

(1.)  This  I  believe  was  never  denied  in  the  general  as 
to  other  things,  by  any  person  of  judgment,  adverting  to, 
and  understanding  what  is  said,  and  w  hy  it  then  should 
be  refused  in  this  case,  I  can  see  no  ground. 

(2.)  If  any  has  ever  in  general  denied  this  in  words,  I 
am  sure  every  man  in  fact  admits  it.  Who  is  he  that  re^ 
ceives  not  many  truths,  that  admits  not  the  being  of  ma- 
ny things,  upon  good  proof,  from  theii'  causes,  efliects,  in- 
separable adjuncts,  <&c.  of  the  nature  of  which  he  can 
give  no  satisfymg  account?  We  all  own  the  mutual  in- 
fluence of  our  souls  and  bodies  upon  one  another,  upon 
the  proofs  we  have  from  the  efiects :  But  whoever  has 
understood  the  manner,  how  the  soul  operates  on  the  bo- 
dy, or  the  body  upon  it  ?  Instances  of  this  sort  are  in- 
numerable. 

(3.)  Sufficient  proofs  must  always  deteriTiine  our  as- 
sent ;  and  if  there  are  such  in  this  case,  it  is  unreasonable 
to  refuse  it. 


358  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

(4.)  If  we  have  sufficient  reasons  to  convince  us,  that 
there  is  a  fourth  sort  of  objective  light  distinct  from  those 
three  admitted  by  Mr.  Locke,  and  only  deny  it  because 
we  understand  not,  or  cannot  give  a  clear  account  of  its 
nature,  I  cannot  tell,  but  on  this  same  ground  we  shall  re- 
ject, and  be  obliged  to  refuse  these  three  sorts  admitted 
by  him,  for  the  very  same  reason.  Mr.  Locke  perhaps 
has  done  as  much  as  any  man  to  explain  them :  but  were 
he  alive,  I  believe  he  would  be  as  ready  to  own  as  any, 
that  he  has  been  far  from  satisfying  himself,  or  offering 
what  may  fully  clear  others  as  to  the  nature  of  these 
things.  Wherein  evidence  consists  ?  What  is  it  ?  AVhat  is 
self-evidence,  or  that  evidence  which  is  the  ground  of 
our  sensible  or  rational  knowledge  ?  How  they  operate 
and  influence  the  assent  ?  All  his  accounts  are  only  de- 
scriptions taken  from  causes,  effects  are  the  like.  But 
what  objective  light  or  evidence  is,  wherein  it  really  con- 
sists, (and  the  like  may  be  said  of  the  rest)  is  as  much  a 
mystery  as  it  was  before,  when  he  tells  us,  that  self-evi- 
dence (ex.  gr.)  is  that  which  is  immediately  perceived 
without  the  intervention  of  intermediate  ideas.  Here  I 
learn,  that  it  is  not  rational  evidence,  that  requires  such 
intermediate  ideas.  But  this  is  all  I  can  learn,  unless  it 
be,  that  it  is  perceptible  by  the  mind,  that  is,  it  is  evi- 
dence. But  what  evidence  is,  I  am  yet  to  learn.  I  think 
this  proposition  is  plain. 

2.  "  A  fourth  sort  of  objective  evidence,  different  from 
"  those  three  assigned  by  Mr.  Locke,  is  not  impossible." 

(1.)  If  any  say  it  is,  it  lies  upon  him  to  prove  it.  That 
Mr.  Locke,  or  millions  more,  observed  no  such  light  in 
their  minds,  found  themselves  determined  to  assent  by  no 
other  objective  evidence  or  light,  will  not  prove  it  im- 
possible ;  yea,  will  not  prove  that  actually  there  is  no 
such  light ;  nay,  will  not  prove,  that  there  is  no  such  light 
in  their  own  minds.  For  Mr.  Locke,  though  he  observ- 
ed as  accurately  the  manner  of  his  mind,  its  actings,  as 
most  men,  yet  might  not  observe  it  so,  but  tliat  he  possi- 
bly overlooked  somewhat  that  passed  there.  And  if  real- 
ly Mr.  Locke  did  not  assent  upon  other  evidence  to  some 
things,  though  he  observed  it  not,  I  doubt  not  but  by 
this  time  he  is  sensible  it  was  his  loss  that  it  was  so.    It 


THE  REASON  OF  €RUE  FAITH.      359 

cannot  be  pretended,  that  it  is  impossible  for  want  of  a 
sufficient  cause,  while  that  God  is  in  being,  who  is  author 
of  the  three  sorts  of  lights,  that  are  admitted,  and  who 
is  the  Father  of  lights.  Nor  can  it  be  pretended,  that  the 
members  of  this  division  stand  contradictorily  opposed 
to  one  another,  as  it  is  in  this,  Every  being  is  dependent 
or  independent. 

(2.)  If  any  will  say  yet.  It  is  impossible  there  should 
be  a  fourth  or  a  fifth  sort  of  light  or  objective  evidence,  I 
shall  desire  him  only  to  stay  a  while,  and  consider  the 
light  of  sense.  It  is  nothing  else  save  "that  evidence 
"  that  results  from  impressions  made  on  our  minds  by 
"  means  of  our  organs  of  sense."  Well,  hereon  I  shall 
ask  two  questions. 

Firsty  Is  it  not  possible  for  him  who  made  those  con- 
veyances or  organs  of  sens«|  to  frame  more  such,  quite 
different  from  tliose  we  already  have,  and  by  means  of 
them  impai-t  to  us  other  perceptions,  and  determine  as  to 
assent  on  the  evidence  of  the  impressions  conveyed  to 
our  minds  by  these  other  senses  ?  If  it  is  possible,  as  I  see 
not  how  rationally  it  can  be  questioned,  here  is  at  least 
a  fourth  sort  of  objective  light  detennining  our  minds  to 
assent,  admitted  3,s  possible. 

Secondly^  Here  I  would  inquire.  Whether  may  not 
He,  who,  by  these  bodily  organs  we  already  have,  im- 
presses ideas  upon  our  minds,  and  determines  our  assent 
to  their  agreement  or  disagreement,  immediately  without 
the  intervention  of  such  organs^  makes  impressions  on  our 
minds,  whereby  our  assent  or  judgment  may  rationally 
be  swayed  ?  To  deny  tliis  will  look  very  odd  and  irra- 
tional to  sober  men,  that  have  due  thoughts  of  God.  If 
it  is  admitted,  we  have  here  at  least  the  possibility  of  an- 
other ground  of  assent,  or  objective  light,  acknowledged, 
different  from  those  condescended  on  by  Mr.  Locke. 

(3.)  We  that  have  the  benefit  of  sight,  have  in  our 
minds  a  sort  of  objective  evidence  or  light,  diffierent  from 
those  wliich  are  born  blind  have.  And  why  should  it 
be  then  thought  impossible  that  others  may  have  in  theii' 
minds  an  evidence  that  we  have  no  experience  of,  and 
that  it  may  ])e  equally  real,  convincing,  or  more  so  tlian 
any  Ihat  we  have. 


360  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

(4.)  Mr.  Locke  grants,  That  there  are  extraordinary 
ways  whereby  tlie  knowledge  of  truth  may  be  imparted 
to  men ;  that  God  sometimes  illuminates  by  his  Spirit 
the  minds  of  men,  with  the  knowledge  of  truths;  that 
there  is  no  bounds  to  be  set  to  such  divine  impressions. 
Now  if  all  this  is  so,  why  may  there  not  be  evidence  of  a 
different  sort,  resulting  from  such  extraordinary  impres- 
sions, illuminations,  &c.  allowed  to  be  also  possible  ? 

(5.)  Either  God  can  reveal  his  mind  so  to  man,  as  to 
give  him  the  highest  evidence  or  objective  light  tliat  he 
speaks  to  him,  who  gets  that  revelation,  or  he  cannot.  If 
he  can,  then  there  is  possible  an  objective  evidt  nee,  and 
that  of  the  highest  sort,  diiferent  from  those  three  men- 
tioned by  Mr.  Locke :  for  that  it  must  be  different  is 
evident,  because  Mr.  Locke  in  this  case  will  allow  no 
place  for  self-evidence,  or  tliat  evidence  we  have  in  our 
intuitive  knowledge,  v^bich  he   determines  to  be  the 
highest  degi'ee  of  these  three  sorts  he  has  admitted  and 
owned.     Speaking  of  immediate   revelation,  he  savs, 
"  No  evidence  of  our  faculties,  by  which  we  receive 
"  such  revelations,  can  exceed,  if  equal,  the  certainty  of 
**  our  intuitive  knowledge,  as  we  heard  above."     Since 
then  this  evidence  of  the  highest  degree,  is  different  from 
that  which  we  have  in  our  intuitive  knowledge,  (if  it  is 
at  all)  it  must  be  of  a  different  sort  from  any  of  those 
three :  For  by  concession,  it  is  not  self-evidence ;  and 
rational  or  sensible  it  is  not,  because  these  sorts  of  evi- 
dence are  of  a  degree  inferior  to  intuitive  evidence  ; — If 
then  it  is  evidence  of  the  highest  degree,  since   Mr. 
Locke  will  not  admit  it  to  be  self-evidence,  it  must  be 
none  of  the  three :  and  so  we  have  a  fourth  sort  admitted 
possible.     But  if  God  cannot  reveal  his  mind,  so  as  to 
give  the  greatest  objective  evidence  that  he  speaks,  or  is 
the  revealer,  then  I  say,  it  is  plain,  and  follows  unavoida- 
bly, that  God's  testunony  can  never  have  from  man  ti,e 
highest  degree  of  assent,  which  Mr.  Locke  above  express- 
ly acknowledged  to  be  its  due.     It  is  in  vain  to  say  flat 
God's  testimony  is  infallible :  for  our  assent  to  any  truth 
upon  God's  testimony,  as  Mr.  Locke  truly  says,  can  ne- 
ver rise  higher,  than  tfje  assurance  we  have  of  this,  that 
really  we  have  God's  testimonyj  and  take  its  meaning. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      361 

If  then  God  cannot  give  us  the  highest  evidence  or  ob- 
jective light  as  to  this,  no  truth  he  offers  can  have  from 
us  the  highest  degree  of  assent.  To  me  this  looks  like 
blasphemy,  to  imagine,  that  God  has  made  a  rational 
creature,  to  whom  he  cannot  so  impart  his  mind  as  to 
give  it  such  evidence  as  is  absolutely  necessary  to  lay  a 
ground  for  entertaining  his  testimony  with  that  respect, 
which  is  its  unquestionable  due.  That  his  testimony  is 
in  itself  infallible,  will  never  make  our  assent  of  the 
highest  degree,  unless  tlie  evidence  of  his  giving  testi- 
mony is  of  the  highest  degree. 

3.  "  We  assert,  That  de facto  there  really  is  a  sort  of 
"  objective  evidence  or  light,  different  from  that  con- 
"  descended  on  by  Mr.  Locke." 

(l.)    The  prophets  to  whom  immediate  revelations 
were  made,  had  objective  evidence,  or  light  sufficient  to 
ground  the  liighest  assurance,  that  the  truths  impressed 
on  their  minds  were  from  God.    It  is  impious  to  deny 
it.    But  this  Mr.  Locke  will  not  allow  to  be  such  evi- 
dence as  we  have  in  our  intuitive  knowledge ;  and  all 
must  confess,  that  it  did  not  result  from  their  outAvard 
senses ;  and  that  it  was  not  grounded  on  reasonings  from 
evidences,  marks  or  signs,  extrinsical  to  the  revelations 
themselves,  seems  undeniable,  or  even  from  reasoning, 
and  making  inferences  from  w  hat  was  intrinsical  in  the 
revelation.     For,  L  We  find  not,  that  this  persuasion 
came  to  them  by  such  argumentation  or  reasoning.  We 
can  see  no  ground  from  any  accounts  we  have  in  scrip- 
ture to  think,  that  they  took  this  way  to  assure  their  ow^n 
minds.    Yea,  2.  The  scripture  accounts  of  the  way  of 
their  being  convinced,  seem  all  to  impod,  that  as  God 
impressed  the  truths  on  their  minds,  so  that  immediate- 
ly by  that  very  impression,  he  fixed  an  indelible  and  firm 
conviction  of  his  being  the  revealer.   Again,  3.  We  see, 
that  the  evidence  was  so  convincing  as  to  bear  down  in 
them  the  force  of  the  strongest  reasonings  and  the  clear- 
est arguments  that  stood  against  it,  as  we  see  evidently 
in  the  case  of  Abraham  ;  he  is  commanded  to  offer  his 
son  Isaac  ;  if  this  command  had  not  been  impressed  on 
his  mind  Avith  an  evidence,  that  God  was  the  revealer, 
beyond  what  any  reasoning  upon  signs  and  marks,  and 

46 


302  AN  E88AY  CONCERNING 

I  knoAv  not  what,  could  pretend  to,  the  strong  plain  ar- 
gmnents  tuat  lay  against  it,  strengthened  by  a  combina- 
tion of  the  strongest  natural  afiections,  must  have  car- 
ried it.  4.  If  Abraham  was  convinced  by  such  reason- 
ings, that  God  revealed  this,  that  this  command  was  from 
God,  is  it  not  strange  that  he  makes  no  mention  of  them, 
when  it  Avas  so  obvious,  that  it  was  liable  to  be  question- 
ed whetlier  God  could  give  such  a  command  ?  But  the 
truth  of  it  is,  it  is  obvious  to  any  one  that  thinks,  that 
notiiing  coidd  prevail  in  this  case,  but  the  uncontrolable 
and  uresistible  evidence  resulting  from  the  very  impres- 
sion, whereby  the  command  was  revealed.  But  we 
wave  any  further  consideration  of  this,  which  noAv  w^e 
have  no  experience  of. 

(2.)  Mr.  Locke  will  admit,  that  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, who  embraced  the  gospel,  did  it  upon  sufficient 
objective  evidence.  He  is  not  a  Christian  who  denies 
it.  But  he  will  not  admit  intuitive  evidence  in  this  case. 
And  I  shall,  I  hope,  afterwards  make  it  appear,  that  it 
was  not  on  the  evidence  of  such  reasonings,  as  Mr.  Locke 
talks  of,  that  they  embraced  it. 

(3.)  The  scriptures  demand  our  assent,  and  offer 
no  ervidence  but  this  of  God's  authority.  And  argu- 
ments are  not  insisted  on  to  prove,  that  it  is  God  that 
speaks;  God  calls  us  not  to  assent  without  objective 
evidence,  and  yet  waves  the  use  of  such  arguments  as 
Mr.  Locke  would  have  to  be  the  foundation  of  our  faith. 
Tliere  must  be  therefore  some  objective  light  of  a  dif- 
ferent sort  supposed,  that  must  be  the  ground  of  our  as- 
sent. And  that  there  really  is  so,  the  scriptures  teach, 
aS  we  shall  see  afterwards,  Avhen  this  proposition  must 
be  proven,  and  explained  more  fully. 

(4.)  Abstracting  from  w  hat  has  been  said,  we  have  as 
good  groimd  as  can  be  desired,  and  as  the  nature  of  the 
thing  admits,  for  believing  there  is  really  a  light  distinct 
from  that  mentioned  by  Mr.  Locke.  As  to  the  per- 
sons who  have  it,  this  light  evidences  itself  in  the  same 
way  as  the  other  sorts  of  intellectual  light  do.  They 
are  conscious  of  it,  and  find  it  has  the  same  effect,  deter- 
mining the  mind  to  assent,  assuring  it,  and  giving  it  rest 
in  the  full  conviction  of  truth.    As  to  others  who  w^ant 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      3G3 

it,  they  have  such  evidence  as  a  blind  man  has,  that  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  visible  evidence.  They  have  the  con- 
curring sufliage  of  persons  sober,  judicious  and  rational, 
who  have  given  evidence  of  the  greatest  cautiousness  in 
guarding  against  delusion,  enthusiasm,  and  groundless 
imaginations.  Besides,  the  effects  peculiarly  flowing 
from  such  a  faith  as  leans  on  this  foundation,  gives  evi- 
dence to  it.  But  I  cannot  stay  to  prove  this  further  at 
present. 

4.  "  Though  perhaps  an  account  every  way  satisfying 
^'  cannot  be  given  of  the  nature  of  this  light,  nor  can 
"  we  so  clearly  see  what  it  is,  and  wiierein it  consists,  as 
"  to  make  those  who  are  unacquainted  Avith  it,  under- 
"  stand  it,  or  have  as  exact  a  notion  of  it  as  they  have, 
"  whose  experience  satisfies  them  as  to  its  reality :  Yet 
"  such  an  account  may  be  given  of  it,  as  may  secure  it. 
"  against  the  imputation  of  unreasonableness,  and  un- 
"  intelligibility."  To  this  purpose,  I  shall  only  observe 
the  few  things  ensuing. 

(1.)  Tliat  light  or  objective  evidence,  w'hereon  we  are 
obliged  to  believe,  and  all  that  are  subjectively  enlight- 
ened to  believe  the  scriptures,  and  ground  their  assent, 
is  such,  that  a  more  intelligible  account  by  far  may  be 
given  of  it  to  those,  who  have  no  experience  of  it,  than 
can  be  given  of  the  objective  evidence  of  visible  objects 
to  persons  who  have  no  experience  of  sight.  To  clear 
this, 

(2.)  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  in  the  writings  of  men, 
especially  of  some,  who  have  any  peculiarity  of  genius, 
and  excel  in  any  kind,  we  find  such  characters,  marks 
and  peculiar  evidences  of  them,  not  only  in  the  matter, 
but  in  ttie  manner  of  expression,  and  way  of  delivering 
their  thoughts:  there  is  such  a  spirit,  and  somewhat  so 
peculiar  to  themselves  to  be  observed,  tliat  such  as  have 
any  notion  of  their  writings,  cannot  thereon  avoid  a  con- 
viction, that  this  or  that  book,  though  it  bears  not  the 
author's  name,  or  those  otlier  marks,  whereon  we  depend 
as  to  our  opinion  of  the  authors  of  books,  of  whom  wo, 
have  no  particular  acquaintance,  is  yet  written  by  such 
an  author,  the  vestiges  of  w  hose  peculiar  spirit  and  ge- 
nius run  through,  and  are  discernible  in  the  strain  of  the 


364  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

l)ook.  There  are  few  men,  who  are  acquainted  with 
books,  and  read  them  with  attention  and  judgment,  who 
have  not  the  experience  of  this.  And  hence  we  are  fre- 
quently referred  to  this,  as  what  may  satisfy  us,  that 
books  tliat  bear  such  authors'  names  are  genuine  and 
truly  theirs.'-;^  And  it  is  found  more  convincing  than  the 
attestation  of  no  incredible  witnesses  in  many  cases. 
Yet  it  must  be  confessed,  that  persons  of  the  best  judg- 
ment, and  most  capable  to  express  their  thoughts^  will 
find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible  to  express  intelligibly 
w  herein  this  objective  evidence  consists  :  But  that  real- 
ly it  is  there,  that  there  is  such  a  thing,  is  impossible  for 
them  to  question. 

(3.)  If  poor  men,  who  differ  infinitely  less  from  one 
another,  than  the  most  exalted  created  being  can  be  sup- 
posed to  do  from  God,  do  impart  to  the  product  of  their 
own  thoughts,  and  leave  on  their  writings  such  peculiar 
and  discernible  characters  of  their  oivn  genius,  and  spirit, 
as,  at  first  view,  upon  the  least  serious  attention,  con- 
vinces the  reader,  that  they  are  the  authors  and  enables 
him  to  distinguish  theii*  writings  from  others,  is  it  not 
reasonable  to  suppose,  that  a  book  written  by  God,  must 
cany  on  it  a  peculiar  and  distinguishing  impress  of  its 
author ;  and  that  by  so  much  the  more  certainly  dis- 
cernible, by  any  that  has  right  notions  of  him,  as  the 
difference  betwixt  him  and  the  most  exalted  human  ge- 
nius is  infinitely  greater,  than  that  betwixt  the  most  con- 
temptible pamphlet  writer  and  the  most  elevated  scho- 
lar? Nay,  is  it  not  impossible  rationally  to  imagine  the 
contrary  ?  Can  we  think  that  he,  who  in  all  his  works, 
even  in  the  meanest  insect,  has  left  such  objective  evi- 
dence, and  such  impressions  of  himself,  whereby  he  is 
certainly  known  to  be  the  author,  has  not  left  impres- 
sions, more  remarkable  and  distinguishing,  on  his  wordy 
which  he  has  magnified  above  all  his  name,  that  is,  all  the 
means  whereby  he  designs  to  make  himself  known,  and 
which  he  designed  to  be  the  principal  means  of  imparting 

*  "  Though  5'ou  had  not  named  the  autlior,  &c.  I  couM  1  a^  e  linoMn  and 
"  avouched  Jiim.  Thee  is  a  face  of  a  style,  by  which  m  e  scholars  know  one 
^'  anoU'c",  no  lesi^  than  our  persons  by  a  vi-ible  countenance."  Eiskoj*  HalVf^ 
Pre' ace  to  Dr.  Tjvist's  doubting  Cons,  resolved,  pag.  2. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      365 

the  knowledge  of  himself  to  men,  and  that  for  the  high- 
est purposes — thek  salvation  and  his  own  glory. 

(4.)  This  impress,  those  characters,  prints  and  vestiges 
of  the  infinite  perfections  of  the  Deity,  that  imavoida- 
bly  must  be  allowed  to  be  stamped  on,  and  shine,  not 
merely,  or  only,  or  principally,  in  the  matter,  but 
in  that  as  spoken  or  written,  and  in  the  writings  or 
words,  in  tlieir  stile,  the  spirit  runnhig  through  them, 
the  scope,  tendency,  &c.    This  eeeTrpeTraa  or  God-be- 
coming hnpress  of  majesty,  sovereignty,  omniscience, 
independence,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  wisdom  and 
power,  is  not  only  a  sufficient  and  real,  but  in  very  deed, 
the  greatest  objective  light  and  evidence  imaginable. 
And  where  one  has  an  understanding  given  to  know  him 
that  is  truey  and  is  made  thereby  to  entertain  any  suita- 
ble notions  of  the  Deity,  upon  intuition  of  this  objec- 
tive evidence,  without  waiting  to  reason  on  the  matter, 
his  assent  will  be  carried,  and  unavoidably  determined 
to  rest  on  it  as  the  highest  ground  of  assurance.     And 
this  assent  founded  on  this  impress  of  the  Deity,  in  his 
own  word,  is  indeed  an  assent  of  the  highest  degree. 
And  thus  far  faith  resembles  our  intuitive  knowledge, 
with  this  difference,  not  as  to  the  manner  of  the  mind's 
acting  but  as  to  the  ability  whence  it  acts ;  that  in  our 
intuitive  knowledge,  as  Mr.  Locke,  and  those  of  his 
opinion,  restricts  it,  the  evidence  or  objective  light  is 
such  as  not  only  is  immediately  without  reasoning  dis- 
cerned, but  such  as  lies  open  to,  and  is  discernible  by 
our  vmderstandings,  without  any  subjective  light,  any 
work  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  either  repairing  our  disabled 
faculties,  or  elevating  and  guiding  them  to  the  due  ob- 
servation, or  fixing  their  attention,  or  freeing  their  minds 
of  the  power  and  present  influence  of  aversion  of  will, 
disorder  of  affections,  and  prejudices  that  obstruct  the 
discerning  power.     Whereas  this  is  really  necessary  in 
this  case ;  and  thougli  the  objective  evidence  is  great, 
and  still  tlie  same,  yet  according  to  the  greater  or  lesser 
degree  of  this  assistance,  our  assent  must  be  stronger  or 
weaker,  more  fixed  or  wavering. 

(5.)  When  this  objective  evidence  is  actually  obser- 
vant to,  and  under  the  view  of  the  mind  thus  enabledr 


366  AN  ESSAV  CONCERNING 

disposed  and  assisted,  there  doth  arise  from  it,  and  there 
is  made  by  it,  an  impression  on  the  whole  soul  corres- 
ponding thereto.  The  beaming  of  God's  sovereign  au- 
thority awes  conscience.  The  piercing  evidence  of  his 
omniscience  increases  that  regard,  the  view  of  his  good- 
ness, mercy,  love  and  grace,  operates  on  the  will,  and 
leaves  a  relisli  on  the  affections,  and  this  truly  resem- 
bles sensible  evidence,  though  it  is  of  spiritual  things, 
and  of  a  spiritual  nature  ;  nor  is  it,  as  it  is  evidence,  in- 
ferior to,  but  upon  many  accounts  preferable  to  that 
which  results  from  the  impression  made  by  sensible  ob- 
jects. And  this,  as  was  observed  of  the  former,  is  also 
greater  or  less,  according,  and  in  proportion ,  unto  the 
view  we  have  of  that  objective  light  abovementioned. 
This  self-evidencing  power  is  a  resultancy  from,  and  in 
degree  keeps  pace  with  that  self-evidencing  light. 

(6.)  The  effects  wrought  on  the  soul  are  such,  many 
of  them,  as  not  only  are  most  discernible  in  the  time, 
but  likewise  do  remain  on  the  soul,  some  of  them  ever 
after,  many  of  them  for  a  long  tract  of  time,  and  in  their 
nature  are  such  as  evidently  tend  to  the  perfecting  of 
our  faculties,  are  suitable  to  them,  and  for  theu-  improve- 
ment, even  according  to  what  unprejudiced  and  sober 
reason  determines,  as  to  that  wherein  the  defects  of  our 
faculties,  and  their  perfection  consists.  And  the  reali- 
ty of  those  effects,  w^hereof  the  mind  is  inwardly  con- 
scious, appears  to  the  conviction  of  beholders,  in  their 
influence  upon  the  person's  deportment  before  the  world. 
And, 

(7.)  Hence  it  is,  that  though  our  conviction  neither 
needs,  nor  is  founded  on  reasonings  ;  yet  from  those 
effects  ground  is  given,  and  matter  offered  for  a  rational 
and  argumentative  confirmation  of  our  assent,  and  the 
grounds  thereof,  and- the  validity  of  it  for  our  own  con- 
firmation, when  that  evidence  which  first  gave  ground 
for  our  faith,  and  wherein  it  rests,  is  not  actually  under 
view,  a'-  also  for  tlic  conviction  of  others. 

(8.)  This  evidence  is  such  as  indeed  challenges,  and  is 
a  sufiicient  bottom  for  an  assent  of  the  highest  degree. 
And  indeed  the  saints  of  God,  and  that  even  of  the  mean- 
est condition,  and  who  have  been  under  the  most  mani- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      367 

fest  disadvantages,  both  as  to  capacity  and  education, 
with  the  like  occasions  of  improvement,  upon  this  bot- 
tom have  reached  faith,  comprising  assurance  without 
doubt,  even  that  full  assurance  of  faithy  yea  the  riches  of 
the  full  assurance  of  understanding,  as  lias  been  evident 
by  the  effects  in  death  and  life,  of  which  Ave  have  nota- 
ble instances  not  a  few  in  Heb.  xi,  throughout,  both  in 
adversity  and  prosperity,  life  and  death. 

5.  "  I  observe,  That  this  light  or  objective  evidence 
"  whereon  faith  is  bottomed,  has  no  affinity  with,  but  is 
"  at  the  farthest  remove  from  enthusiastic  impulses,  or 
"  hnaginations." 

(1.)  This  is  not  a  persuasion  without  reason.  Here  is 
the  strongest  reason,  and  the  assent  hereon  given  leans 
upon  the  most  pregnant  evidence. 

(2.)  It  carries  no  contradiction  to  our  faculties,  but 
influences  them,  each  in  a  way  suitable  to  its  nature  and 
condition. 

(3.)  Yea  more,  none  of  our  faculties  in  their  due  use 
do  contradict,  or  at  least  disprove  it.  Whereas  enthu- 
siastic impressions  are  irrational. 

(4.)  This  is  not  a  persuasion,  nor  a  ground  for  it  with- 
out, or  contrary  to  the  word,  but  it  is  the  evidence  of 
the  word  itself,  that  by  it  we  are  directed  to  attend  to, 
and  improve. 

(5.)  Yea  it  is  what  our  other  faculties  in  their  due 
use  will  give  a  consequential  confirmation  to,  as  we  have 
heard.     Wherefore, 

(6.)  Mr.  Locke  shall  be  allowed  to  run  down  enthu- 
siasm as  much  as  he  pleaseth,  and  "  persuasions  where- 
"  of  no  reason  can  be  given,  but  that  we  are  strongly 
"  persuaded,"  or  not  to  give  credit  to  those  that  can  say 
no  more  for  themselves,  "  but  we  see  or  feel,"  &c.  But 
these  things  as  delivered  by  Locke,  need  some  cautions. 
As,  1.  A  persuasion  whereof  no  reason  can  be  given,  is> 
certainly  not  faith,  but  fancy  :  but  a  persuasion,  where- 
of he  that  hath  it,  through  weakness,  cannot  give  an  ac- 
count, may  be  solid.  2.  A  persuasion  may  be  solid,  of 
which  he  that  hath  it,  cannot  give  another  evidence  of 
the  same  kind  as  he  hath  himself  It  is  enough  that 
proof  of  anotlier  sort,  and  sufficient  in  its  kind,  is  ofTer- 


368  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

ed.  3.  If  one  says,  he  sees  and  be  feels,  this  may  be  sa- 
tisfying to  him,  thougli  he  cannot  give  any  distinct  ac- 
count of  the  evidence  he  hath.  And  tiiat  he  cannot  thus 
accomit  for  the  nature  of  things  that  are  within  him,  con- 
cludes not  against  the  reality  and  truth  of  what  he  has 
the  experience :  but  his  experience  is  not  ground  of  con- 
viction to  others,  unless  other  proofs  are  offered.  A  man 
of  a  shallow  capacity,  destitute  of  education,  might  be 
convicted  of  enthusiasm  by  a  subtle  blind  man,  to  Avhom 
he  cannot  for  his  seeing  give  an  evidence  of  the  same 
kind,  nor  open  the  nature  of  visible  evidence,  nor  give 
any  other  proof  that  he  is  not  mistaken,  but  that  he 
sees  ;  and  yet  notwithstanding  of  this  he  is  not  mistaken, 
assents  not  without  reason,  and  has  no  ground  to  call  in 
question  what  he  sees,  but  may  and  will  securely  laugh 
at  all  the  blind  man's  quirks,  and  tell  him,  he  is  blind. 
The  case  is  parallel.  We  must  not  by  this  Atheistical 
scare-crow  be  frightened  out  of  our  faith  and  experi- 
ence. 

6.  "  That  many  read  the  scriptures,  without  discern- 
"  ing  any  thing  of  this  liglit,  is  no  argument  against  it.'* 
For, 

(1 .)  Many  want  that  supernatural  ability,  that  un- 
derstanding whereby  God  is  known,  whereby  Christ's 
sheep  know  his  voice  from  that  of  a  stranger,  and  so  not  be- 
ing of  Gody  they  cannot  hear  his  words. 

(2.)  Many  want,  and  are  utterly  destitute  of  any  tol- 
erable notions  of  God:  It  is  impossible  such  should  dis- 
cern what  is  suitable  to  him. 

(3.)  Many  have  perverse  notions  of  God  rivetted  on 
their  minds,  and  that  both  among  the  learned  and  un- 
learned ;  and  finding  the  scripture  not  suited  to,  but 
contrary  to  those  false  pre-conceived  impressions,  they 
look  on  it  as  foolishness. 

(4.)  Many  Avant  that  humble  frame  of  sphit,  which 
has  tlie  promise  of  divine  teaching ;  the  meek  he  guides 
in  the  way.  It  is  they  who  are  fools  in  thek  own  eyes, 
who  get  wisdom. 

(5.)  Many  are  proud  and  conceited  deeply,  and  no 
wonder  then  that  they  know  notliing. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      369 

(6.)  Many  have  the  vanity  of  their  minds  uncured, 
and  so  hunt  after  vain  things,  and  fix  not  in  observation 
of  what  is  solid,  and  thereby  their  foolish  hearts  are  har- 
dened, and  theii*  minds  darkened  and  diverted. 

(7.)  Not  a  few  are  under  the  power  of  prevailing  lusts, 
disordered  affections,  and  out  of  favor  to  them  they  are 
80  far  from  desiring  an  increase  of  knowledge,  that  on 
the  contrary,  they  like  not  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge. 
What  they  already  know,  is  uneasy  to  them,  because  con- 
trary to  their  lusts,  and  therefore  they  would  be  rid 
of  it. 

(8.)  Many  there  are  that  despise  the  Spu'it  of  God, 
reject  his  operations,  seek  not  after  hiin,  contemn  him : 
And  no  wonder  such  as  refuse  the  guide,  lose  the  way. 

(9.)  Many,  for  those  and  other  sins,  are  judicially  left 
of  God  to  the  god  of  this  world,  who  blinds  the  minds  of 
them  that  believe  not. 

(10.)  Many  never  attempt  to  do  his  will,  and  so  no 
wonder  they  come  not  to  a  discerning  whether  the  word 
spoken  and  written,  is  of  God.  And  if  all  these  things 
are  considered,  we  shall  be  so  far  from  questioning  the 
truth,  because  many  see  not  the  evidence,  that  this  very 
blindness  will  be  an  argument  to  prove  the  truth  of  it^ 
and  a  strong  evidence  of  the  need  of  it,  and  of  superna- 
tural power  to  believe  it. 

Finally,  Persons  sober  and  attentive  want  not  some 
darker  views  of  this  evidence,  which  may  and  should 
draw  them  on  to  wait  for  more.  And  I  take  the  honorable 
confessions,  in  favor  of  the  scriptures,  made  by  adversa- 
ries, to  have  proceeded  from  some  fainter  views  of  this 
sort. 

Thus  I  have  considered  tlie  force  of  what  I  find  plead-* 
ed  by  Mr.  Locke ;  stated  the  question ;  cleared  in  some 
measure  our  opinion  as  it  stands  opposed  to  that  of  the 
Rationalists ;  assigned  an  intelligible  notion  of  the  rea-' 
son  of  faith ;  and  shewed  it  to  be  such  as  the  meanest  are 
capable  of,  and  such  as  is  proposed  to  all  Avho  are  oblig- 
ed to  believe  the  scriptures;  whereas  these  historical 
proofs  are  above  the  reach  of  thousands,  and  were  never 
heard  of  by  innumerable  multitudes,  who,  on  pain  of 

M 


370  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

damnation,  are  obliged  to  receive  the  scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God. 

lY.  Having  in  our  third  observation  overthrown  the 
ground  of  Mr.  Locke's  opinion,  we  are  now  to  clear, 
tliat  what  Mr.  Locke  builds  on,  must  of  course  fall ; 
particularly  what  he  tells  us.  Lib.  4.  Cap.  18.  Par.  6.  page 
584.  "  That  they  who  make  revelation  alone  the  sole 
"  object  of  faith,  cannot  say,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  faith, 
"  and  not  of  reason,  to  believe,  that  such  or  such  a  pro- 
"  position,  to  be  found  in  such  or  such  a  book,  is  of  divine 
"  inspiration ;  unless  it  can  be  revealed.  That  that  pro- 
"  position,  or  that  all  in  that  book  was  communicated  by 
"  divine  inspiration."  And  he  goes  on  telling  us,  "  That 
"  without  such  a  particular  revelation,  assuring  us  of  this, 
"  that  this  proposition  is  by  divine  inspiration,  it  can  ne- 
"  ver  be  matter  of  faith,  but  matter  of  reason,  to  assent 
"  to  it." 

What  Mr.  Locke  designs  by  this  discourse,  I  know 
not ;  unless  he  meant  to  put  us  under  a  necessity  to 
prove  every  proposition  of  the  scripture  to  be  of  divine 
inspiration,  before  we  believe  what  it  exhibits.  And  if 
this  is  what  he  intends,  he  overthrows  the  Christian  reli- 
gion entirely,  at  least  as  to  its  use  and  advantage  to  the 
generality.  But  waving  what  further  might  be  observ- 
ed, I  shall  only  animadvert  a  little  upon  that  one  asser- 
tion, "  That  our  belief,  that  this  or  that  proposition  is 
"  from  God,  is  not  an  act  of  faith  but  of  reason."  As  to 
which  I  say, 

1.  If  Mr.  Locke  designed  no  more  but  this.  That  the 
mentioned  assent  to  the  scripture  propositions,  is  an  act 
of,  and  subjected  in  our  rational,  or  intellectual  faculty, 
it  might  well  be  admitted.    Or, 

2.  If  Mr.  Locke  meant,  that  this  assent  is  agreeable  to 
the  nature  of  our  minds,  that  is,  that  it  is  not  really  con- 
trary to  the  true  principles  of  reason,  nor  such  as  pro- 
ceeds without  such  grounds  as  the  nature  of  our  under- 
standings requue  for  founding  an  assent,  we  should  ad- 
mit, that  in  this  sense  it  is  an  act  of  reason,  that  is,  a  ra- 
tional act,  as  not  only  being  elicit  by  our  understandings, 
but  depending  on  such  a  reason  or  ground,  as  the  nature 


THE  REASON  OP  TRUE  FAITH.      371 

of  the  intellectual  power  requires,  and  which  must  be 
always  consistent  with  our  certain  knowledge.    But, 

3.  Neither  of  these  being  intended,  we  cannot  go  along 
with  Mr.  Locke  in  what  he  means  by  this  expression. 
That  our  belief  of  scripture  propositions,  is  an  act  of 
reason,  that  is,  an  assent  not  built  upon  divine  testimony, 
but  on  such  other  arguings  and  reasonings,  as  we  can 
find  out  for  proving  that  God  revealed  it.  Because  we 
say,  and  shall  afterwards  prove,  that  the  scriptures  do 
evidence  themselves  to  be  from  God,  in  that  way  above- 
expressed,  and  afterwards  to  be  explained  and  confirm- 
ed, which  we  hope  shall  be  done  in  such  sort,  as  may  ef- 
fectually repel  the  force  of  what  Mr.  Locke  has  pleaded 
in  opposition  to  the  scriptures,  and  shew  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  ranking  all  the  truths  therein  delivered 
amongst  those  conjectural  things  that  lean  only  on  proba- 
bilities and  reasonings  from  them,  which  Mr.  Locke  evi- 
dently does,  while  he  sinks  traditional  revelation  as  to 
the  point  of  certainty  below  our  intuitive,  rational  and 
tiensible  knowledge ;  and  banishes  all  faith,  properly  so 
called,  out  of  the  world,  leaving  no  room  for  it,  and  sub- 
stituting in  its  place  an  act  of  reason,  proceeding  upon 
probabilities,  that  is,  on  historical  proofs,  which  he 
reckons  only  among  probabilities ;  nor  do  I  blame  him 
for  this  last, though  perhaps  some  things  he  has  offiered  on 
this  head,  might  be  excepted  against ;  but  this  is  not  my 
business. 

The  question  in  short  amounts  to  this,  "  Whereas  the 
"  scriptures,  wherever  they  come,  oblige  all  to  whom 
"  they  are  offered,  to  receive  them  not  as  the  word  of 
"  maw,  but,  as  indeed  they  are,  the  rvord  of  God ;  upon 
"  what  ground  or  formal  reason  is  it,  that  we  assent 
"  thus  unto  them,  and  receive  them  as  the  word  of  God, 
"  to  his  glory  and  our  salvation,  in  compliance  with  our 
«  dutyr 

In  answer  to  this  important  query,  I  shall  offer  what,  up- 
on a  review  of  former  experience,  upon  consideration  of 
the  scriptures,  and  upon  what  others,  especially  that  Judici- 
ous and  profound  divine  Dr.  Owen,  in  his  two  treatises  on 
this  subject,  have  written  on  this  head,  appears  satisfy- 
ing to  me :  And  this  I  shall  do  in  the  few  following  Pro- 


372  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

positimiSy  which  I  sliall,  with  as  much  brevity  and  perspi- 
cuity as  I  can,  lay  down,  and  shortly  confirm  with  some 
few  arguments. 

Prop.  I.  "  That  faith  whereby  we  assent  unto,  and 
"  receive  the  word  of  God,  to  his  glory  and  our  salva- 
^'  lion,  is  faith  divine  and  supernatural." 

1 .  There  are  at  this  day,  who  teach,  That  whatever 
faitli  is  at  present  to  be  found  amongst  men,  is  built  up- 
on, and  resolved  into  the  testimony  of  men.*  And 
therefore  it  will  be  necessary  to  insist  a  little  in  confirm- 
ing and  explaining  of  this  important  truth. 

2.  To  clear  this  we  observe,  that  the  understanding, 
or  that  faculty,  power  or  ability  of  the  soul  of  man, 
whereby  we  perceive,  and  assent  unto  truths  upon  their 
proper  evidence,  may  be  distinguished  or  branched  m- 
to  diverse  subordinate  powers,  in  respect  of  the  difler- 
ent  truths  to  which  it  assents,  1,  We  have  an  ability 
of  assenting  unto  the  self-evident  maxims  of  reason,  such 
as  that,  The  same  thing,  at  the  same  time,  cannot  be 
and  not  be,  upon  their  own  self-evidence,  without  any 
other  argument,  than  a  bare  proposal  of  them  in  terms 
we  understand.  2.  We  have  an  ability  to  assent  unto 
other  truths,  upon  conviction  of  their  truth  by  ar- 
guments, drawn  from  the  forementioned  self-evident 
truths,  or  any  other  acknowledged  or  owned  by  us.  3. 
"We  have  an  ability  to  assent  unto  truths,  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses,  or  pei'sons 
w^orthy  to  be  believed,  and  of  deserving  credit.  This 
ability,  and  the  assent  given  by  it  to  such  truths,  upon 
such  testimony,  are  both  called  by  the  same  common 
name,  faith. 

3.  Faith  then  is  that  power  or  ability  of  the  mind  of 
man,  whereby  he  is  capable  of  receiving,  and  actually 
assents  to  truths  upon  the  evidence  of  the  testimony  of 
persons  worthy  of  credit,  who  know  what  they  testify, 
and  will  not  deceive  us.  Now  whereas  the  person  giv- 
ing this  testimony,  is  either  God,  men  or  nngels,  good  or 


L'Clerc  in  his  Logic?. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.         373 

hady  faith  may  be  considered  as  either  divine^  human  or 
angelical.  This  last,  as  of  no  consideration  to  our  purpose, 
we  shall  lay  aside.  Tliat  faith,  or  ability,  whereby  we 
assent  to  the  testimony  of  men  worthy  of  credit,  is  call- 
ed human  faithy  And  that  whereby  we  assent  to  truths 
upon  the  evidence  of  the  testimony  of  God,  who  cannot 
lie,  is  called  divine  faith. 

4.  Divine  faith  is  that  power,  or  ability  whereby  we 
assent  unto,  and  receive  truths  proposed  to  us  upon  evi- 
dence of  the  w  ord  or  testimony  of  God,  to  our  own  sal- 
vation, in  compliance  ^^  ith  our  duty,  to  the  glory  of  God. 

5.  In  this  account  of  divine  faith,  we  add,  in  compli- 
ance with  our  duti/y  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  our  own  sal- 
vatiouy  because  devils  and  men  may  yield  some  assent 
unto  truths,  upon  the  evidence  of  God's  testimony,  which 
neither  answers  their  duty,  nor  turns  to  the  glory  of  God 
in  their  salvation,  of  which  we  do  not  now  design  to 
speak,  and  therefore  by  this  clause  have  cut  it  off,  and 
laid  it  aside,  as  not  belonging  to  that  faith  whereof  we 
now  speak,  and  whereby  we  conceive  all,  to  whom  the 
scriptures  come,  are  obliged  to  receive  them. 

6.  This  faith  now  described  may  be  called  divine,  and 
supernatural,  and  really  it  is  so  on  two  accounts,  1.  Be- 
cause tliis  ability  is  wrought  in  them,  in  whom  it  is  found, 
by  the  divine  and  supernatural  power  of  God.  2.  Be- 
cause it  builds  not  its  persuasion  of,  yields  not  its  assent 
unto  the  truths  it  receives  upon  any  human  authority  or 
testimony;  but  upon  the  testimony  of  God,  who  can  nei- 
ther be  ignorant  of  any  truth,  nor  be  deceived,  or  deceive 
us. 

7.  It  now  remains,  that  we  confirm  this  proposition 
that  we  have  thus  shortly  explained.  And  this  we  shall 
do  by  its  several  parts.  Firsts  then  we  assert,  "That 
"  this  faith  is  wrought  in  those,  who  have  it,  by  the 
"  power  of  God."  Now  for  clearing  tliis,  we  shall  only 
hint  at  the  heads  of  a  few  arguments,  leaving  the  further 
proof  to  polemic  treatises.  1.  This  ability  to  believe 
and  receive  the  things  of  God  to  our  salvation  and  his 
glory,  is  in  scripture  expressly  denied  to  natural  or  un- 
renewed men.  2  Thes.  iii,  2.  All  men  have  not  faith.  1 
Cor.  ii,  14. — The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of 


374  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

he  Spirit  of  God:  For  they  are  foolishness  unto  him:  Neither 
can  he  know  theniy  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned, 
John  viii,  47. —  Ye  therefore  hear  not  God's  words,  because 
ye  are  not  of  God.  2.  This  is  expressly  denied  to  be  of 
ourselves,  and  asserted  a  supernatural  ^i/'/  of  God.  Ephes. 
ii,  8. — By  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith,  and  that  not 
of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  3.  The  production  of 
it  is  ascribed  unto  God.  He  it  is  that  fulfils  in  his  peo- 
ple the  work  of  faith  with  power,  2  Thes.  i,  1 1.  He  it  is 
that  gives  them,  that  is,  that  enables  them,  on  the  behalf 
of  Christ,  to  believe  and  suffer  for  his  name,  Pliil.  i,  29.  It 
is  one  oi  the  fruits  produced  by  the  spirit.  Gal.  v,  22.  and 
of  it  Christ  is  the  author.    Heb.  xii,  2. 

Secondly,  We  are  next  shortly  to  prove,  "  that  this 
"  faith  builds  its  persuasion  on  the  testhuony  of  God, 
"  evidencing  itself  such  unto  the  mind,"  and  not  on  hu- 
man testimony.  1.  It  is  in  scripture  expressly  said  not 
to  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  1  Cor.  ii,  5,  that  is,  it  leans 
not  on  the  word,  autliority,  eloquence  or  reasonings  of 
men.  2.  It  is  expressly  in  that  same  verse,  said  to  stand 
in  the  power  of  God,  that  is,  as  the  foregoing  words  com- 
pared v^  ith  verse  13,  explain  it,  in  the  words  jvhich  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  leacheth,  and  which  he  demonstrates  or  evidences 
hy  his  power,  accompanying  them,  to  be  the  word  of 
God.  3.  It  is  described  in  such  a  way  as  fully  clears 
this ;  it  is  held  forth  as  a  receiving  of  the  word,  not  as  the 
word  of  man,  but  as  it  is  indeed  the  word  of  God,  which  ef- 
fectually worketh  in  you  that  believe,  1  Thes.  ii,  13.  Ma- 
ny other  proofs  might  be  added,  but  this  is  sufficient  to 
answer  our  purpose. 

Thirdly,  We  shall  next  shortly  prove,  "  that  we  are 
"  obliged  in  duty  thus  to  believe  the  scriptures,  or  to 
"  receive  them  as  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  men." 
1.  The  scriptures  are  indeed,  and  hold  themselves  forth 
every  where  as  the  word  of  God.  They  are  the  oracles 
©f  God,  which  holy  men  of  God  spake  by  the  motion  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  wrote  by  divine  inspiration,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  speaks  to  us  by  them.^  Now  when  God  ut- 
ters oracles,  speaks,  writes  and  utters  his  mind  to  us,  we 

*  Heb.  V,  12.— 2  Pet.  i,  20,  21.— 2  Tim.  iii,  16.— Mark  xii,  36.— Acts  5,  16— 
Acts  xxviii,  25.— Heb.  iii,  7. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.     375 

are  in  duty  obliged  and  bound  to  assent  to  what  he  says, 
and  yield  what  obedience  he  requires.  This  the  very 
light  of  nature  teacheth.  2.  The  scriptures  were  written 
for  this  very  end,  that  we  might  believe,  and  that  believ- 
ing we  might  have  life,  John  xx,  30,  31.  The  scriptures  of 
the  prophets  (which  contain  the  revelation  of  the  mystery 
of  God's  will,  otherwise  not  known)  according  to  the  com- 
mandment  of  the  everlasting  God,  are  made  known  unto  all 
nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith,  Rom.  xvi,  25,  26. 
Again  the  scriptures  are  tenned  a  more  sure  word  of  pro- 
phecy than  the  voice  from  heaven,  and  men  are  said  to 
do  well,  to  take  heed  to  them,  2  Pet.  i,  toward  the  close. 
That  is,  it  is  thek  duty  to  take  heed  to  them,  or  believe 
them.  3.  The  most  dreadful  judgments  are  threatened 
against  those  who  receive  not  the  word  of  God  from  the 
prophets  or  apostles,  whether  by  word  or  writ,  is  all  one. 
fVhosoever  shall  not  receive  you,  nor  hear  your  words, 
when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city,  shake  off  the  dust 
of  your  feet.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  It  shall  be  more  tolera- 
ble for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  than  for  that  city.  Matt,  x,  14, 15.  Accordingly 
we  find  the  apostles  preach  the  word  at  Antioch  in  Pisi- 
dia.  Acts  xiii ;  demand  acceptance  of  it  both  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles ;  and  upon  their  refusal  they  testify  against  them 
in  the  way  of  the  Lord's  appointment,  ver.  51.  Though 
so  far  as  we  can  learn,  they  there  wrought  no  miracles 
to  confinm  their  mission.  4.  We  have  above  heard  the 
apostle  commending  the  Thessalonians  for  receiving  the 
word  as  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  man.  1.  Thess.  ii,  13, 
which  sufficiently  shews  that  it  was  their  duty. 

Whereas  some  may  here  say,  "  How  can  it  be  our  du- 
ty to  believe  the  word  of  God,  since  it  has  been  above 
proved,  that  we  are  not  able  of  ourselves  thus  to  do  it." 
I  answer  briefly,  1.  The  very  light  of  nature  requires 
perfect  obedience  of  us  ;  and  yet  we  are  not  able  to 
yield  this  to  it.  2.  The  scriptures  plainly  require,  that  we 
serve  God  acceptably,  with  reverence  and  Godly  fear,  Heb. 
xii,  28,  and  yet  we  must  have  grace  whereby  to  do  it. 
3.  We  have  destroyed  ourselves,  Hos.  xiii,  9,  and  that 
through  this,  our  faith  or  natural  ability  of  believing 
truths  upon  testimony,  is  so  impaired  and  weakened,  and 


376  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

by  prejudices  so  obstructed  otherwise,  that  we  are  noi 
able  to  discern  the  evidence  of  God's  authority,  in  his 
word,  nor  assent  thereon  to  his  testimony  in  a  due  man- 
ner, yet  this  cannot  reasonably  prejudge  God's  riglit  to 
demand  credit  to  his  word,  whereon  he  has  impiessed 
such  prints  of  his  authority,  as  are  sufficiently  obvious 
to  any  one's  faith,  that  is  not  thus  faultily  depraved. 
4.  We  have  therefore  no  reason  to  question  God,  who 
gave  us  eyes,  which  we  have  put  out,  but  to  blame  our- 
selves, and  aim  to  do  his  will,  that  is,  Avait  on  him  in  all 
the  ways  of  his  OAvn  appointment ;  and  we  have  no  rea- 
son to  despair,  but  that  in  this  way  we  may  have  gracious- 
ly given  us  of  God's  sovereign  grace,  an  understandmg  to 
know  whether  these  truths  are  of  God,  or  they  who 
spoke  them  did  it  of  themselves,  (1  John  v,  20.  John  vii, 
1 7.)  though  we  cannot  claim  this  as  what  is  our  due. 

Thus  we  have  in  some  measure  cleared  what  that 
faith  is,  whereby  the  scriptures  must  be  believed  to  the 
glory  of  God  and  our  own  salvation,  and  confirmed 
shortly  our  account  of  it  from  the  scriptures  of  truth. 
We  now  proceed  to 

Prop.  II.  "  The  reason,  for  which  we  are  obliged  in 
•*  duty  to  believe  or  receive  the  scriptures  as  the  word 
"  of  God,  is  not.  That  God  has  by  his  Spirit  wrought 
"  faith  in  us,  or  given  us  this  ability  thus  to  receive 
"  them." 

This  proposition  we  have  offered,  because  some  do 
blame  Protestants  for  saying  so  ;  whereas  none  of  them 
really  do  it.  Nor  can  any  man  reasonably  say  it.  For 
clearing  this  observe, 

1.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  we  cannot  believe  them,  un- 
less God  give  us  this  gracious  ability  or  faith  to  believe 
them,  and  by  his  Holy  Spuit  remove  our  natural  dark- 
ness, and  clear  our  minds  of  those  prejudices  against 
his  word,  wheiewith  they  are  naturally  filled. 

2.  Yet  this  is  not  the  reason  wherefore  we  do  assent 
unto,  or  receive  the  scriptures  ;  for  it  were  impertinent, 
if  any  should  ask.  Upon  what  accoiuit  do  ye  believe 
the  scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God?  to  aoswer,  I  be- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      377 

Vieve  it  because  God  has  wrought  the  faith  of  it  in  me. 
Tliis  is  not  to  tell  wherefore  we  do  believe,  but  to*tell 
how  we  came  to  be  furnished  with  power  or  .  ability  to 
believe. 

Prop.  IH.  "  We  are  not  to  believe  the  scriptures  up- 
**  on  the  authority  of  any  man  or  church  :  or,  I'he  rea- 
"  son  wherefore  we  are  in  duty  bound  thus  to  assent  to^ 
"  or  receive  the  scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  is  not, 
"  that  any  man,  or  church,  says  so.'* 

This  is  fully  demonstrated  by  our  writers  against  the 
Papists.  For  confirmation  of  it,  it  is  sufficient  for  our 
purpose  at  present  to  observe, 

1 .  That  to  believe,  that  the  scriptures  are  the  word 
of  God,  because  such  a  man,  or  church  says  so,  answers 
not  our  duty.  Our  duty  is  to  believe  God  speaking  to 
us,  upon  the  account  of  his  own  veracity  ;  and  not  be- 
cause men  say  that  this  is  his  w^ord.  This  is  not  to  be- 
lieve God  and  his  prophets  for  the  sake  of  their  own 
testimony,  but  for  the  authority  of  men,  (2  Chron.  xx. 
20.) 

2.  The  faith  that  leans  upon  this  testimony,  is  built 
not  on  the  truth  of  Gody  but  on  the  testimony  of  me% 
who  may  be  deceived  and  may  deceive :  All  men  are  liars. 

3.  Vie  have  no  where  in  the  word  this  proposed  as  the 
ground  whereon,  in  duty,  we  are  obliged  to  believe  the 
scriptures. 

4.  The  church,,  and  what  she  says,  is  to  be  tried  by  the 
word,  and  her  testimony  is  so  far  only  to  be  received  as 
the  Avord  consents  ;  and  tlierefore  we  cannot  make  this 
the  ground  of  our  faith,  without  a  scandalous  circle, 
Avhich  the  church  of  Rome  can  never  clear  herself  of. 

5.  But  I  need  insist  no  further  on  this  head.  That 
church  Avhich  only  clamis  this  regard  to  her  testimony, 
is  long  since  become  so  well  known,  and  so  fully  con- 
victed of  manifold  falsehoods,  that  her  testimony  rather 
prejudges  than  helps  to  confirm  whatever  it  is  engaged 
for.. 

Prop.  TV.  "  The  rational  arguments  whereby  the 
"  truth  of  the  Ciiiistian  religion  is  evinced  and  demon- 

48 


37a  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

"  strated  against  Atheists,  though  they  are  many  ways 
"  useful,  yet  are  not  the  ground  or  reason  whereon, 
"  in  a  way  of  duty,  all  who  have  the  scriptures  piopos- 
"  ed  to  them,  are  obliged  to  believe  and  receive  them 
"  as  the  word  of  God." 

These  moral  and  rational  considerations  are,  and  may 
be  many  ways  useful  to  stop  the  mouths  of  enemies,  to 
beget  in  them,  who  yet  are  unacquainted  with  the  true 
intrinsic  worth  of  the  Avord,  some  value  for  it,  and  en- 
gage them  to  consider  it ;  to  relieve  them  that  do  be- 
lieve against  objections,  and  strengthen  their  faith.  This 
is  allowed  to  them ;  and  is  sufficient  in  this  loose  and 
Atheistical  age,  to  engage  persons  of  all  sorts  who  value 
the  scriptures,  to  study  them.  But  yet  it  is  not  upon 
them  that  the  faith  requued  of  us,  as  to  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  scriptures,  is  to  be  founded.    For, 

1.  These  are  indeed  a  proper  foundation  for  a  rational 
assent,  such  as  is  given  upon  moral  proof  or  demonstra- 
tion. And  they  are  able  to  beget  a  strong  moral  per- 
suasion of  this  truth.  But  this  assent  which  they  beget, 
cannot,  in  any  propriety  of  speech,  be  called  faith,  ei- 
ther divine  or  human*  For  faith  is  an  assent  upon 
testimony. 

2.  The  faith  that  is  requued  of  us,  is  required  to  be 
founded  not  on  the  wisdom  of  meUy  that  is,  the  reason- 
ings or  arguings  of  men.  Now  this  leans  only  and  en- 
tuely  on  these. 

3.  This  faith  is,  in  the  way  of  duty,  required  of  ma- 
ny. Many  are  in  duty  obliged  to  receive  the  scriptures 
as  the  word  of  God,  to  whom  these  arguments  were 
never  offered.  The  apostles  never  made  use  of  them, 
and  yet  required  their  hearers  to  receive  and  believe 
their  word. 

4.  This  faith  many  are  obliged  to,  who  are  not  capa- 
ble of  understanding  or  reaching  the  force  of  thesa  ar- 
guments. 

Prop.  V.  "  The  faith  of  the  scripture's  divine  au- 
"  thority  is  not  founded  in  this.  That  they  by  whom 
ff;  they  were  written,  did,  by  miracles,  prove  they  were 
«  sent  of  God." 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      379 

I  need  not  spend  much  time  in  clearing  Ibis.  It  will 
sufficiently  confirm  it  to  observe, 

1.  That  many  are,  and  Avere  in  duty  obliged  to  yield 
this  assent  to,  and  believe  the  scriptures,  who  saw  not 
these  miracles.  ^ 

2.  We  are  no  other  way  sure  of  these  being  wrought, 
than  by  the  testimony  of  the  word. 

3.  This  way  is  not  countenanced  by  the  word:  for  it 
no  where  teaches  us  to  expect  miracles  as  the  ground  of 
our  assent,  but  upon  the  contrary  declares,  that  the  word 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets  is  sufficient  to  lay  a  founda- 
tion for  faith,  without  any  new  miracle,  (Luke  x.  31.) 

Prop.  VI.  "  The  reason  whereon,  in  duty  we  are 
"  bound  to  receive  the  scriptures  as  the  word  of  God, 
"  is  not  any  private  voice,  whisper  or  suggestion  from 
"  the  Spirit  of  God,  separate  and  distinct  from  the  writ- 
"  ten  word,  saying  in  our  ear,  or  suggesting  to  our  mind, 
"  that  the  scriptures  are  the  Avord  of  God." 

There  is  no  need  to  insist  long  in  proof  of  this. 
For, 

1.  Many  are  bound  to  believe  the  word  of  God,  to 
whom  never  any  such  testimony  was  given ;  but  no  man 
is  bound  to  receive  the  scriptures,  to  whom  the  ground 
whereon  he  is  bound  to  believe  them,  is  not  proposed. 

2.  There  is  no  where  in  the  word,  any  ground  given 
for  any  such  testimony.  Nor  doth  the  experience  of 
any  of  the  Lord's  people  witness,  that  they  are  ac- 
quainted with  any  such  suggestion.  And  besides,  the 
question  miglit  again  be  moved  concerning  this  sug- 
gestion, Wherefore  do  ye  believe  this  to  be  the  testimo- 
ny of  God  ? 

Prop.  VII.  "  That  whereon  all,  to  whom  the  word  of 
"  God  comes,  are  bound  to  receive  it  with  the  faith 
"  above  described,  is  not  any  particular  word  of  the 
"  scripture  bearing  testimony*^  to  all  the  rest.  As  for 
"  instance,  it  is  not  merely  or  primarily  upon  this  ac- 
^'  count,  that  I  am  bound  to  receive  all  the  written  word 
"  as  the  word  of  God,  because  the   scripture  says, 


380  '  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

**  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  That  all  scrhyturc  is  s^iven  hy  inspiration 
*'ofGodr  I  o         J      J 

This  IS  very  plain  upon  many  accounts,  some  of  wbich 
I  shall  shortly  offer. 

1.  AVehad  been  obliged  to  believe  the  scriptures  with 
faith  supernatural,  though  these  testimonies  had  been 
left  out.  Yea,  they  who  had  tliem  not,  were  obliged  to 
believe  the  word  of  God. 

2.  These  have  no  more  evidence  of  their  being  from 
God,  than  other  places  of  scriptures ;  and  therefore  we 
are  not  to  believe  the  scriptures  merely  on  their  testi- 
mony ;  but  have  the  same  reason  to  receive  with  faith 
as  the  word  of  God,  every  pait  of  the  scripture  as  well 
as  these  testimonies. 

Prop.  VIII.  "  The  reason  why  we  are  bound,  with 
"  faith  supernatural  and  divine,  to  receive  the  word  of 
"  God,  is  not,  that  the  things  therein  therein  revealed, 
"  or  the  matters  of  the  scriptures,  are  suitable  unto  the 
"  apprehensions  which  men  naturally  have  of  God, 
"  themselves  and  other  things,  and  congruous  to  the  in- 
"  terests,  necessities,  desires  and  capacities  of  men." 

I  shall  not  spend  time  in  overthrowing  this,  which 
some  seem  so  fond  of ;  only  for  confirming  the  proposi- 
tion observe, 

1.  This  suitableness  of  the  matter  unto  the  apprehen- 
sions, or  natural  notions  of  men  concerning  God,  them- 
selves and  other  things,  &c.  as  discerned  by  men  unre- 
newed, and  made  out  by  their  reasonings,  is  not  a  ground 
for  faith,  or  an  assent  to  testimony,  but  for  a  persuasion 
of  another  sort. 

2.  There  are  many  things  revealed  in  the  scripture, 
which  are  to  any  mere  natural  man  no  Avay  capable  of 
this  character.  No  man  receives,  or  can  reasonably  re- 
ceive on  this  account,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
the  like.  It  is  true,  these  are  not  contrary  to  our  rea- 
son ;  but  it  is  likewise  ti  ue,  they  have  no  such  evident 
congruity  to  the  notions  our  reason  suggests  of  God,  ae 
should  engage  us  to  receive  the  discovery  as  from  God  ; 
yea,  on  tlie  contrary,  there  is  a  seeming  inconsistency 
that  has  startled  many. 


THE  REASON  OP  TRUE  FAITH.      381 

Prop.  IX.  "  When  therefore  it  is  inquired,  Where- 
"  fore  do  ye  ])elieve,  and  by  faith  rest  in  the  scriptures 
"  as  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  man  ?  We  do  not  an- 
"  svver,  It  is  because  God  has  given  us  an  ability  so  to 
"•  do  ;  because  tl:e  church  says,  it  is  the  word  of  God  ; 
"  because  tiiere  are  many  strong  moral  arguments  prov- 
"  ing  it  so  ;  because  they  who  wrote  it,  Avrought  mira- 
"  cles ;  because  God  has  by  some  voice  whispered  in  our 
"  ear,  or  secretly  suggested  it  to  us,  that  thib  is  the  word 
"  of  God;  or  because  there  are  particular  scriptiues 
"  whicl)  bear  witness  to  all  the  rest  tliat  they  are  of  God ; 
"  nor  finally,  because  the  matter  therein  revealed,  seem 
"  worthy  of  God  to  our  reason. 

Tliis  is  the  sum  of  what  has  been  hitherto  cleared ; 
and  the  reasons  offered  against  all  these,  whether  we 
take  them  separately  or  conjunctly.  They  prove,  that 
not  one  of  them,  nor  all  taken  together,  are  the  formal 
reason  whereon  we  are  obliged  to  believe  the  word 
of  God,  or  receive  it  with  faith  supernatural  and  di- 
vine. 

Prop.  X.  "  The  formal  reason  or  ground  whereon  I 
"  assent  to,  or  receive  the  whole  scriptures,  and  every 
"  particular  trutli  in  them,  and  am  obliged  in  duty  so  to 
"  do,  is,  the  authority  and  truth  of  God  speaking  in 
"  them,  and  speaking  every  truth  they  contain,  evidenc- 
"  ing  itself  to  my  faith,  when  duly  exercised  about 
"  them,  and  attending  to  tliem,  by  their  own  divine  and 
"  distinguishing  liglit  and  power.  Or  when  it  is  inquu'ed, 
"  Wherefore  do  ye  believe,  receive,  assent  to  and  rest 
"  in  the  scriptures  as  indeed  the  Avord  of  God,  and  not 
"  of  man?  I  answer,  I  do  believe  them,  because  they 
"  carry  in  them,  to  my  faith,  an  evidence  of  God,  or  do 
"  evidence  themselves  by  their  own  light  and  power  to 
"  my  faith,  duly  exercised  about  them,  that  they  are 
"  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  man." 

Now  for  explaining  tliis,  which  is  the  assertion  that 
contains  the  truth  principally  intended,  I  shall  olfer  the 
few  following  remarks : 

1.  However  great  the  evidence  of  God  in  the  word 
is,  yet  it  cannot,  nor  U  it  requisite  that  it  should,  deter- 


382  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

mine  any  to  receive  and  assent  to  it,  whose  faith  and 
ability  of  believing  is  not  duly  disposed.  Though  the  sun 
shine  never  so  clearly,  yet  he  that  has  no  eyes,  or  whose 
eyes  are  vitiated,  and  under  any  total  darkening  indispo- 
sition, sees  it  not.  No  wonder  then,  that  they,  who 
have  not  naturally,  and  to  whom  God  has  not  yet,  by 
supernatural  grace,  given  eyes  to  see,  ears  to  hear,  or 
hearts  to  perceive,  discern  not  the  evidence  of  God*s 
authority  and  truth  in  the  word. 

2.  Although  there  really  may  be  in  any  an  ablility, 
or  faith  capable  of  discerning  this  evidence  ;  yet  if  that 
faith  is  not  exercised,  and  duly  applied  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  word,  whereon  this  evidence  is  impressed,  he 
cannot  assent  unto,  or  believe  it  in  a  due  manner,  to  the 
glory  of  God,  his  own  salvation  and  according  to  his 
duty.  There  is  evidence  sufficient  in  many  moral  meta- 
physical and  mathematical  truths ;  and  yet  abimdance 
of  persons,  who  are  sufficiently  capable  of  it,  do  not  as- 
sent unto  these  truths,  nor  discern  this  evidence ;  not  be- 
cause it  is  wanting,  but  because  they  do  not  apply  their 
minds  to  the  observation  of  it  in  a  due  way.  God  has 
not  imparted  such  an  evidence  to  his  word,  as  the  light 
of  the  sun  has,  which  forces  an  acknowledgment  of 
itself  upon  any,  whose  eyes  are  not  wilfully  shut  j  but 
designing  to  put  us  to  duty,  he  has  imparted  such  evi- 
dence, as  they,  who  have  eyes  to  see,  if  according  to 
duty  they  apply  their  minds,  may  discern,  and  be  satis- 
fied by. 

3.  This  light  and  power  evidencing  the  divine  authori- 
ty of  the  scriptures,  is  really  impressed  upon  every 
truth,  or  every  word  which  God  speaks  to  us,  especial- 
ly as  it  stands  in  its  own  place,  related  to,  and  connected 
with  the  other  parts  of  the  scripture,  whereto  it  belongs. 
But  of  this  more  hereafter. 

4.  When  to  question,  wherefore,  or  on  what  grounds 
do  I  assent  to  the  scriptures  as  indeed  the  word  of  ^od 
and  not  of  man?  It  is  answered,  I  do  it,  because  it  evi- 
dences itself  to  be  God's  word  by  its  own  light  or  power, 
there  is  no  place  for  that  captious  quest  ion.  How  know  ye 
this  lio;lit  and  poAver  to  be  divine,  or  fjom  God ?  For,  it 
is  of  the  natme  of  all  light,  external  and  sensible,  or 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      383 

internal  and  mental,  (concerning  which  two  it  is  hard  to 
determine  which  of  them  is  properly,  and  which  only 
metaphorically,  light)  that  it  not  only  clears  to  the  mind 
other  things  discernible  by  it,  but  satisfies  the  mind 
about  itself,  proportionably  to  the  degiee  of  its  clear-* 
ness.    The  light  of  the  sun  discovers  sensible  objects, 
and  satisfies  us  so  fully  about  itself,  that  we  need  liave 
recourse  to  no  new  arguments  to  convince  that  we  have 
this  light,  and  that  it  is  real.    In  like  manner  the  evi- 
dence of  any  mathematical  truth,  not  only  quiets  us 
about  the  truth,  but  makes  the  mind  rest  assured  about 
itself.     And  so  the  divine  light  and  power  of  the  word, 
not  only  satisfies  our  minds,  as  to  those  truttis  tliey  are 
designed  of  God  to  discover,  but,  in  proportion  to  the 
degree  of  light  in  them,  or  conveyed  by  them,  satisfy 
the  mind  about  tliis  light  or  power,  that  it  is  truth  and  is 
no  lie.  Nor  is  there  need  for  any  other  argument  to  con- 
vince a  mind  affected  with  this,  of  it.     It  is  true,  if  a 
blind  man  should  say  so  to  me,  Hov»^  know  ye  that,  the 
sun  shines,  and  ye  see  it  ?  I  would  answer,  I  know  it  by 
tlie  evidence  of  its  own  light  aftecting  mine  eyes :  And 
if  he  should  further  say.  But  how^  prove  ye  to  me,  tiiat 
ye  are  not  deluded,  and  that  really  it  is  so?  Then  I  would 
be  obliged  to  produce  otlier  arguments  whereof  lie  is 
capable  :  But  then  it  must  be  allowed  tliat  the  evidence 
of  these  arguments  is  not  s6  great  as  the  evidence  I  my- 
self have  of  it  by  its  own  light ;  though  they  may  be 
more  convincing  to  him.     And  further,  this  is  not  to 
convince  myself,  but  to  satisfy  him,  and  free  my  mind 
from  the  disturbance  of  his  objections.    In  like  mannei-, 
if  one,  that  denies  the  scriptures,  shall  say.  Wherefore 
do  ye  believe  or  rest  in  the  scriptures,  as  the  word  of 
God?  I  answer,  I  do  it,  because  they  evidence  themselves 
to  my  mind,  by  their  owii  light,  or  power,  to  be  of  God. 
If  he  shall  say,  I  cannot  discern  this.  I  answer.  It  is  be- 
cause your  mind  is  darkened,  ye  want  eyes,  or  have 
them  shut.    If  he  shall  further  mge,  Ttiat  my  light  is 
not  real,  I  will  prove  it  by  arguments,  which  may  stop 
his  mouth,  and  be  more  convincing  to  lum  than  my  as- 
sertion, which  is  all  that  hitherto  he  has ;  but  yet  these 
argiuTients  are  not  that  whereon  my  mmd  rests  satisfied 


384  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

as  to  the  truth  ;  though  they  may  be  of  great  use,  not 
only  to  convince  him,  but  to  relieve  my  mind  against 
such  subtle  sophisms,  as  he  might  make  use  of,  which 
though  they  could  not  persuade  nje  out  of  the  sight  of 
my  eyes,  or  the  evidence  shining  into  my  mind,  yet 
troubled  me  how  to  answer  them,  and  at  times,  when, 
through  my  inadvertency,  or  indisposition  of  my  eyes, 
or  through  clouds  overspreading  and  interposing  betwixt 
this  light  and  me,  these  objections  might  shake  me  a 
little. 

5.  Considering  we  are  but  renewed  in  part,  and  our 
faith  is  imperfect,  and  liable  to  many  defects,  the  minis- 
try of  the  church  is  of  manifold  necessity  and  use,  to 
awaken  us  to  attend  to  this  liglit,  to  cure  the  indisposi- 
tions of  our  minds,  to  hold  up  this  light  to  us,  to  point 
out  and  explain  the  truths  it  discovers,  whereby  our 
minds  are  made  more  sensible  of  the  evidence  of  this 
light.  And  upon  many  other  accounts  of  a  like  nature, 
are  the  ordinances  necessary,  and  through  the"  efficacy 
of  the  divine  ordination  and  appointment,  useful  for  es- 
tablishing our  minds,  naturally  sluggish,  dark,  weak  and 
unstable,  and  Avhich  are  exposed  to  manifold  temptations, 
in  the  faith  of  the  scriptures. 

6.  In  order  to  our  holding  fast  our  faith,  and  being 
stable  in  it,  besides  this  outward  ministry,  and  the  in- 
ward work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  giving  us  an  understand- 
ing to  discern  this  evidence,  and  besides  the  foremen- 
tioned  use  of  the  moral  arguments  abovementioned ; 
besides  all  these,  to  our  believing  and  persevering  in  a 
due  manner,  in  the  faith  of  the  scriptures,  we  stand  in 
need  of  the  daily  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  to 
strengthen  our  faith  or  ability  of  discerning  spiritual 
things,  to  clear  our  minds  of  prejudices,  and  incidental 
indispositions,  to  seal  the  truths  on  our  minds,  and  give 
us  refreshing  tastes  of  them,  and  confirm  us  luany  ways 
against  opposition. 

7.  This  light,  whereby  the  written  word  evidences  it- 
self unto  the  minds  of  those  who  have  spiritual  ears  to 
hear,  and  apply  them,  is  nothing  else  save  the  impress  of 
the  majesty,  truth,  omniscience,  wisdom,  holiness,  justice, 
grace,  mercy,  and  authority  of  God,  stamped  upon  the 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH,      m 

scriptures,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  beaming  or  shining 
into  the  minds  of  such  persons  upon  tijeir  hearing  or  pe- 
rusal, and  affecting  them  with  a  sense  of  these  perfec- 
tions, both  in  what  is  spoken,  and  in  the  majestic  and 
God-becoming  way  of  speaking :  They  speak  as  never 
man  spake  ;  the  matter  spoken,  and  the  manner  of  speak- 
ing, has  a  greatness  discernible  by  a  spb'itual  understand- 
ing, that  fully  satisfies  it,  that  God  is  the  speaker.  And 
all  the  impressions  of  God's  wisdom,  faitlifulness,  omni- 
science and  majesty,  that  are  stamped  upon  the  matter 
contained  in  the  scriptures,  being  conveyed  only  by  tlie 
word,  do  join  the  impressions  that  are  upon  the  word, 
and  strengthen  the  evidence  they  give  of  their  divine 
original,  since  these  impressions  do  not  otherwise  ap- 
pear to  our  minds,  or  affect  them,  than  by  the  word. 
The  word,  by  a  God-becoming  manifestation  of  the 
truth,  that  scorns  all  these  little  and  mean  arts  of  in- 
smuation,  by  fail*  and  enticing  Avords,  and  artificially 
dressed  up  argumentations,  with  other  the  like  confes- 
sions of  human  weakness,  that  are  in  all  human  writings, 
commends  itself  to  the  conscience,  dives  into  the  souls 
of  men,  into  all  the  secret  recesses  of  their  hearts,  guides, 
teaches,  directs,  determines  and  judges  in  them,  and  up- 
on them,  in  the  name,  majesty  and  authority  of  God. 
And  when  it  enters  thus  into  the  soul,  it  fills  it  with  tiie 
light  of  the  glory  of  the  beamings  of  those  perfections 
upon  it,  whereby  it  is  made  to  cry  out,  The  voice  of 
God  and  not  of  man. 

8.  This  power,  whereby  the  w^ord  evidences  itself  to 
be  the  word  of  God  and  not  of  man,  is  nothing  else 
save  that  authority  and  awful  efficacy,  which  he  puts 
forth  in  and  by  it  over  the  minds  and  consciences  of 
men,  working  divinely,  and  leaving  effects  of  his  glori- 
ous and  omnipotent  power  in  them  and  on  them.  It  en- 
teis  into  the  conscience,  a  territory  exempt  from  the 
auttiority  of  creatures,  and  subject  only  to  the  dominion 
of  God,  it  challenges,  convinces,  tlireatens,  awakens, 
sets  it  a  roaring,  and  the  creation  cannot  quiet  it  again.  It 
commands  a  calm,  and  the  sea,  that  was  troubled  be- 
fore, is  smooth,  and  devils  and  men  are  not  able  to  dis- 
turb its  repose.  It  enters  into  the  mind,  opens  its  eves, 
49 


386  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING. 

fills  it  with  a  glorious,  clear,  pure  and  purifying  light, 
and  sets  before  it  wonders  before  unknown,  undiscerned 
in  counsel  and  knowledge,  concerning  God,  ourselves, 
our  sin,  our  duty,  our  danger,  and  our  relief,  the  works, 
the  ways,  the  counsels  and  purposes  of  God.     It  speaks 
to  the  will,  converts  it,  and  powerfully  disengages  it  from 
what  it  was  most  engaged  to,  what  it  embraced,  and  was 
even  glued  to  before,  so  that  no  art  or  force  of  elo- 
quence, argument,  fear  or  hope,  could  make  it  quit  its 
hold .;  it  makes  it  hastily  quit  its  embraces,  and  turn  its 
bent  another  way,  the  quite  opposite,  and  with  open 
arms  embrace  what  nothing  could  make  it  look  to  be- 
fore, takes  away  its  aversion,  makes  it  willingly  not  on- 
ly go,  but  run  after  what  it  bore  the  greatest  aversion  to 
before,  and  obstinately  refuse  to  close  with  any  other 
thing.     It  enters  the  affections,  makes  them  rise  from 
the  ground,    gives  them  such   a   divine  touch,    that, 
though  they  may  through  their  fickle  nature,  be  carried 
at  a  time  by  force  another  way,  yet  they  never  rest,  but 
point  heavenward.  It  comes  to  the  soul,  sunk  under  the 
pressure  of  unrelievable  distresses,  sticking  in  the  miry 
clay,  refusing  comfort,  and  in  appearance  capable  of 
none,  it  plucks  it  out  of  the  clay,  raises  it  out  of  the 
homf3le  pit,  sets  ii^  feet  upon  a  rock,  fills  it  with  joy,  yea 
makes  it  exceeding   joyful,    while  even   all   outward 
pressures  and  tribulation  continue,  yea  are  increased.  It 
enters  into  the  soul,  lays  hold  on  the  reigning  lusts,  to 
which  all  formerly  had  submitted,  and  that  with  delight ; 
it  tries  and  condemns  those  powerful  criminals,  makes 
the  soul  throw  off  the  yoke,  and  join  in  the  execution 
of  its  sentence  against,  and  on  them.     Now  w  here  the 
case  is  thus  stated,  how  can  the  soul,  that  feels  this  power- 
ful word,  that  comes  from  the  Lord  most  High,  do  other- 
wise-than /a/Z  dorvriy  and  own.   That  God  is  in  it  of  a 
Iruth. 

9.  Whereas  some  may  hereon  object,  "  That  many, 
"  who  have  for  a  long  time  heard  and  perused  this 
^*  word,  have  not  perceived  this  light,  nor  felt  this  pow- 
"  er,  and,  on  this  supposition,  seem  exempted  from 
^'^  any  obligation  to  believe  the  word."    I  answer. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      387 

(1.)  Many  who  have  spent  not  a  few  years  in  prying 
into  the  works  of  God  in  the  world,  have  not  discerned 
to  this  day  the  beaming  evidence,  and  clear  declarations 
of  his  glory  in  them ;  yet  none  will  hereon  say,  that  they 
are  excusable,  or  tl>at  want  of  an  evidence  is  chargea- 
ble on  the  works  of  God.  And  why  should  not  the  case 
be  allowed  the  same  as  to  the  word  ?  May  they  not  have 
this  evidence,  though  men  do  not  discern  it  ?  And  may 
not  men,  even  on  account  of  this  evidence  be  obliged  to 
believe  them  ? 

(2.)  No  wonder  many  discern  not  this  light,  and  are  not 
affected  with  it,  since  all  men  have  put  out  their  own 
eyes,  or  impaired  by  their  own  fault,  that  faith  or  pow- 
er of  discerning  the  voice  of  God,  speaking  either  by  his 
word  or  works,  which  our  natures  originally  had.  In 
many  this  evil  is  increased,  and  this  power  fmlher  weak- 
ened by  their  shutting  their  eyes,  and  entertaining  of 
prejudices  manifestly  unjust,  againrt  God's  word  and 
works.  Others  turn  away  their  eyes,  and  will  not  look 
to,  or  attend  to  the  word  in  that  way  wherein  God  or- 
dains them  to  attend  to  it,  that  they  may  discern  its  light, 
and  feel  its  power.  And  God  has  hereon  judicially 
given  many  up  to  the  power  of  Satan,  to  be  further 
blinded.  And  no  wonder  they,  whose  eyes  the  God  of 
this  world  has  blinded,  should  not  discern  the  glory  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God  shining  in- 
to their  minds. 

(3.)  No  wonder  they  should  not  discern  this ;  for  God 
to  this  day  has  not  given  them  eyes  to  see,  ears  to  hear,  or 
hearts  to  perceive.  It  is  an  act  of  sovereign  grace,  which  God 
owes  to  none,  to  open  their  eyes,  which  they  have  wil- 
fully blinded  :  and  where  he  sees  not  meet  to  do  this,  it 
is  not  strange,  that  they  are  not  affected  with  the  clearest 
evidence. 

(4.)  Light,  however  clear,  cannot  of  itself  supply  the 
defect  of  the  discerning  power.  The  sun,  though  it 
shines,  cannot  make  the  blind  to  see.  The  word  has  this 
light  in  it,  though  the  blind  see  it  not ;  yea  I  may  ad- 
venture to  say,  "that  the  w^ord  of  God  contained  in  the 
iicriptures,  Avhich  he  has  magnified  above  all  his  name, 
has  in  it  more,  and  no  less  discernible  evidences  of  the 


388  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNliNG   fF?^ 

divine  perfections,  and  consequently  of  its  divine  origi- 
nal and  authority,  tban  the  works  of  creation,  some  of 
which  are  sufficient  to  carry  in  some  conviction  of  God 
in  it,  even  on  the  minds  of  those  who  are  not  savingly 
enlightened,  if  they  attend  but  to  it  in  the  due  exercise 
of  their  rational  abilities,  that  is,  in  such  a  manner  as  they 
do,  or  may  attend  to  it,  without  saving  illumination,  lay- 
ing aside  wilful  prejudice  ;  which  though  it  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  draw  such  an  assent,  as  will  engage  and  ena- 
ble them  to  receive  the  scriptures,  in  a  due  manner,  to 
the  glory  of  God,  and  theii*  own  salvation,  and  comply 
with  them,  yet  I  conceive  it  will  be  sufficient  to  justify 
against  them  the  word's  claim  to  a  divine  original,  and 
cut  them  off  from  any  use  of,  or  excuse  from  a  plea  of 
the  want  of  sufficient  evidence  of  the  divine  original  of 
the  word.  I  doubt  not,  but  many  of  these,  who  upon 
conviction  said,  that  Christ  spake  as  never  man  spake,  were 
strangers  to  saving  illumination,  and  yet  saw  somewhat 
of  a  stamp  and  impress  of  divinity  in  what  he  said,  and 
the  manner  of  saying  it,  that  drew  this  confession  from 
them,  that  rendered  them  inexcusable,  in  not  listening 
to  him,  and  complying  with  his  word.  Yea  I  doubt  not, 
that  the  case  will  be  found  the  same  as  to  many,  with  re- 
spect to  the  written  word,  and  would  be  so  to  all,  if  they 
seriously,  and  without  wilful  prejudices,  attended  to  it. 

10.  I  fmlher  observe.  That  to  engage  to  this  assent,  it 
is  not  requisite,  that  every  one  feel  all  these,  or  the  like 
particular  effects  at  all  times,  but  that  the  word  have  tljis 
power  and  put  it  forth,  as  occasion  needs,  and  circum* 
stances  requires  it. 

Having  thus  explained,  we  are  now  to  prove  our  as- 
sertion "  That  the  ground  whereon  we  are  in  duty  bound 
"  to  believe  and  receive  the  word  of  God  as  his  word, 
"  and  not  the  word  of  man,  and  whereon  all  who  have-  tQ 
"  received,  and  believed  it  in  a  due  manner,  to  the  glory 
"  of  God  and  their  own  salvation,  do  receive  it  thus,  is 
"  the  authority  and  veracity  of  God  speaking  in  and  by 
"  the  word,  and  evidencing  themselves  by  that  light  and 
"  power,  which  is  conveyed  into  the  soul  in  and  by  the 
^*  &cript\ires,  or  the  written  word  itself,"  ". 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.       389 

Many  arguments  offer  themselves  for  proof  of  this  h«- 
portant  assertion,  which  hitherto  we  have  explained ; 
so!ne  of  the  most  considerable  of  them  I  shall  shortly 
propose,  without  insisting  largely  on  the  prosecution  de- 
signing only  to  liint  the  arguments  that  satisfied  me,  that 
I  was  not  mistaken  as  to  the  grounds  whereon,  by  the 
forementioned  experience,  I  was  brought  to  receive  the 
scriptures  as  the  word  of  God.  . 

Arg.  1.  God  ordinarily  in  the  scriptures  offers  his 
mind,  requiring  us  to  believe,  obey  and  submit  to  it  up- 
on this  and  no  other  ground,  viz.  the  evidence  of  his  own 
testimony.  The  only  reason  commonly  insisted  on  to 
warrant  our  faith,  oblige  us  to  believe  and  receive,  is. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord. 

Arg.  2.  When  false  prophets  set  up  their  pretended 
revelations  in  competition  with  his  word,  he  remits  them 
to  the  evidence  his  words  gave  by  their  own  light  and 
power,  as  that  which  was  sufficient  to  distinguish  and 
enable  them  to  reject  the  false  pretensions,  and  cleave  to 
his  word,  Jer.  xxiii,  26,  29.  How  long  shall  this  be  in  the 
heart  of  the  prophets  that  prophecy  lies  ?  That  are  prophets 
of  the  deceit  of  their  own  hearts  ;  which  think  to  cause  my 
people  to  forget  my  name  by  their  dreams,  which  they  tell 
every  man  to  his  neighbour,  as  their  fathers  have  forgotten 
my  name  for  Baal.  The  prophet  that  hath  a  dream,  let 
him  tell  a  dream,  and  he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak 
my  word  faithfully  :  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat, 
saith  the  Lord  ?  Is  not  my  word  like  afire,  saith  the  Lord, 
and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  mountains  in  jdeces  ? 
In  the  latter  days  of  that  church,  when  the  people  Avere 
m<jst  eminently  perplexed  with  false  prophets,  both  as 
to  their  number  and  subtilty,  yet  God  lays  their  eternal 
and  temporal  safety  or  ruin,  on  their  discerning  aright 
between  his  word,  and  that  which  was  only  pretended 
so  to  be.  And  that  they  might  not  complain  of  tiiis  hn- 
position,  he  tenders  them  security  of  its  easiness  of  per- 
formance :  speaking  of  his  own  word  comparatively  as 
to  every  thing  that  is  not  so,  he  says.  It  is  as  7vheat  to 
chaff,  which  may  infaUibly,  by  being  what  it  is,  be  dis- 
cerned from  it ;  and  then  absolutely  that  it  hath  such 
properties,  as  that  it  will  discover  itself,  even  light,  heat 


390  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

and  power.  A  person  divinely  inspired  was  to  be  at- 
tended to  for  no  other  reason,  but  tlie  evidence  of  the 
word  of  God,  distinguishing  itself  from  the  pretended 
revelations,  and  satisfying  the  mind  about  it,  by  its  light 
and  power. 

Arg.  3.  When  further  evidence,  as  that  of  miracles,  is 
demanded,  as  necessary  to  induce  them  that  are  unbe- 
lievers to  receive  and  believe  the  word,  it  is  refused,  as 
what  was  not  in  the  judgment  of  God  needful,  and 
would  not  be  effectual ;  and  unbelievers  are  remitted  to 
the  self-evidence  of  the  word,  as  that  which  would  satis- 
fy them,  if  any  thing  would.  This  our  Lord  teaches 
clearly  in  the  parable  of  Lazarus  and  the  rich  man,  Luke 
xvi,  27,  to  the  end.  The  rich  man  being  disappointed 
as  to  any  relief  to  himself,  in  the  preceding  verses,  is 
desirous  of  preventing  the  ruin  of  his  brethren,  and  for 
this  end  is  concerned  to  have  them  induced  to  believe. 
To  which  purpose  he  proposes,  ver.  27,  the  sending  of 
Lazarus  from  the  dead  to  certify  them  of  the  reality  of 
eternal  things  :  /  pray  thee  therefore  Father,  says  he  to 
Abraham,  that  wouldest  send  him  to  my  father^ s  house  : 
for  I  have  Jive  brethren  j  that  he  may  testify  unto  themy  lest 
they  also  come  to  this  place  of  torment.  Abraham  saith  un- 
to him.  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  let  them  hear 
them.  And  he  said,  Nay,  father  Abraham ;  but  if  one  went 
unto  them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.  And  he  said  un- 
to him,  if  they  hear  not  3Iosesand  the  prophets,  neither  will 
they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.  Here 
the  case  is  plain.  The  rich  man  desires  a  miracle  to  sa- 
tisfy his  brethren.  This  is  refused,  and  they  are  remit- 
ted to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  as  what  was  sufficient. 
He  insists,  and  thinks  a  miracle  would  be  more  satisfy- 
ing. This  is  still  refused,  and  it  is  plainly  taught.  That, 
w^iere  the  evidence  of  the  word  of  God  will  not  induce 
or  persuade  to  believe,  the  most  uncommon  miracles 
would  not  do  it. 

Arg.  4.  When  the  question  is  considered  particular- 
ly, 1  Cor.  xiv.  What  gifts  were  most  to  the  use  of  the 
fiiurch,  the  mii-aculous  gifts  of  tongues,  &;c.  or  the  ordi- 
nary gift  of  prophecy,  or  preaching  of  the  word?  this  last 
'is  preferred,  as  what  v/as  not  only  more  useful  for  the 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      3^1 

edification  of  believers,  but  for  inducing  unbelievers  to 
receive  the  word,  and  submit  to  it;  and  the  way  wherein 
it  does  this,  is  mentioned,  which  is  no  other  than  by  its 
evidencing  itself  upon  its  naked  proposal,  in  preacliing, 
by  its  own  light  and  power.  Let  the  whole  passage  be 
considered  from  verse  22,  but  especially  verse  24,  25. 
But  if  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that  believctk  not^ 
or  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is  judged  of  all: 
And  thus  are  the  secrets  of  his  heart  made  manifest,  and  so 
falling  down  on  his  face,  he  will  ivorship  God,  and  report, 
that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth. 

Arg.  5.  The  constant  practice  of  the  apostles  fully 
.  proves  our  assertion.  The  way  they  took  to  persuade 
the  unbelieving  world  to  receive  the  gospel,  Avas  not  by 
proposing  the  arguments  commonly  insisted  upon  now, 
for  proving  the  trutli  of  their  doctrine,  nor  working,  nor 
insisting  upon  miracles  wrought  by  tliem,  for  confirma- 
tion of  the  truth,  but  by  a  bare  proposal  of  the  truth,  and 
.  a  sincere  manifestation  of  it  to  consciences,  in  the  name 
of  God,  they  proceeded,  and  demanded  acceptance  ot  it, 
as  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  man;  and  by  this  means 
they  converted  the  world.  And  when  tbey  did  refuse 
it,  thus  proposed,  they  shook  off  the  dust  of  their  feet  for 
a  testimony  against  them,  and  so  laid  tliem  open  to  tiiat 
awful  threatening  of  our  Lord,  of  punishments  more  in- 
tolerable than  tiiose  of  Sodom  and  Gommorrah. 

Arg.  5.  The  experience  of  those  who  do  believe 
aright,  confirms  it  fully.  However  they  may  be  re- 
lieved against  the  objections,  and  capacitated  to  deal 
with  adversaries  by  other  arguments  and  means,  yet 
that  whereon  believers  of  all  soils,  learned  and  unlearn- 
ed, lean,  is  the  word  of  God  evidencing  itself  unto  their 
faitli,  by  its  own  light  and  power.  The  unlearned  are  for 
the  most  part  capable  of  no  other  evidence,  and  yet  upon 
this  alone,  in  all  ages,  in  life  and  death,  in  doing  and  suf- 
fering, they  have  evidenced  another  and  great  sort  of  sta- 
bility and  firmness  in  cleaving  to  it,  and  suffering  cheer- 
fully for  it,  on  this  account  only,  than  the  most  learned, 
who  w  ere  best  furnished  with  arguments  of  another  na- 
ture, but  wanted  this :  and  indeed  if  this  is  not  allowed 
to  be  the  ground  of  faith,  there  can  be  no  divine  faith 
leaning  upon  a  divine  and  infallible  bottom ;  and  the 


392  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

vulgar,  who  are  incapable  of  any  other  evidence,  must 
rove  in  uncertainty,  and  pin  their  faith  upon  the  sleeves  of 
their  teachers:  but  blessed  be  God,  here  is  a  ground  suffi- 
cient to  rest  on,  that  will  not  fail.  He  speaks,  and  his 
sheep,  notwithstanding  that  simplicity,  which  makes 
them  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  know  his 
voice,  hear  him,  and  follow  it,  and  will  notliearthe  voice  of 
a  stranger. 

Prop.  XI.  "  Whereas  it  may  be  pretended,  that  on 
"  supposition  of  what  has  been  now  asserted,  the  people 
"  of  God,  at  times  when  they  discern  nut  this  light,  feel 
"  not  this  power,  have  no  ground  for  their  faith,  with  re- 
"  spect  unto  these  passages  or  portions  of  scripture,  which 
"  do  not  thus  evidence  themselves  to  be  from  God,  at 
"  the  time  of  then-  perusal,  or  of  their  hearing  of  tliem, 
"  by  affecting  the  believer's  mind,  with  a  sense  of  this 
"  divine  light  and  power.  In  opposition  to  this  objec- 
"  tion,  and  for  removing  the  ground  of  it,  I  offer  tt  e  fol- 
"  lowing  truth,  which  afterwards  I  shall  clear,  TLat 
."  there  is  no  part  of  the  scriptures,  in  so  far  as  God 
"  speaks  in  them,  but  doth  thus  sufficiently  evidence 
"  his  authority  in  its  season,  unto  persons  capable  of 
"  discerning  it,  and  duly  applying  themselves  in  the  way 
"  of  the  Lord's  appointment,  in  so  far  as  they  are  at 
"  present  concerned  to  receive,  believe  and  obey  it,  in 
"  compliance  with  their  present  duty,  and  reach  the 
"  meaning  of  the  proposition  in  and  by  the  use  of  the 
*^*  means  of  God's  appointment." 

This  objection  has  sometimes  had  a  very  formidable 
aspect  to  me,  and  therefore  I  shall  distinctly  propose, 
so  far  as  the  brevity  designed  will  permit,  the  grounds 
whereon  I  was  satisfied  about  the  truth  proposed  in  op- 
position to  it,  in  the  following  explicatory  and  confirm- 
ing observations,  referring  for  further  clearing,  as  to  the 
way  wherein  the  Lord  quieted  me,  and  relieved  me  of 
objections,  to  the  foregoing  chapter. 

] .  We  are  to  observe,  that  faith,  or  that  power  in 
man,  whereby  he  assents  to  the  truth  upon  testimony,  is 
corrupted,  as  well  as  his  other  powers,  by  his  fall.  And 
though  in  believers  it  is  renewed,  they  receiving  an  un- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      393 

derstanding,  whereby  they  know  hiin  that  is  true,  and 
Jcnorv  his  voice  from  that  of  a  stranger y  yet  even  in  them 
it  is  imperfect,  and  habitually  weak,  they  being  re- 
newed but  in  part,  and  so  knowing  but  in  part,  as  it 
is  witii  respect  to  his  other  powers,  so  it  is  as  to 
this.  And  besides  this  habitual  weakness,  which  en* 
gages  tl>em  to  cry  to  the  Lord  daily  for  carrying  on 
the  work  of  faith  with  power,  and  an  increase  of  faith  to 
believe  and  live  to  God  in  a  due  manner;  besides,  I  say, 
this  habitual  weakness,  it  is  liable  to  various  extraordi- 
nary incidental  disorders,  arising  from  inward  and  out- 
ward occasions,  while  the  believer  is  here  in  this  valley 
of  tears,  subject  unto  the  miseries  occasioned  by  the  re- 
maining power  of  indwelling  corruptions,  which  are  in 
themselves  restless,  and  raise  many  fogs,  damps  and 
mists  to  overcloud  the  soul:  and  by  the  violence  of  out- 
ward temptations,  which  Satan  and  the  world  throng  in 
ujx)n  them,  through  the  w^ise  permission  of  God,  for  the 
exercise  of  their  faith  in  this  state  of  trial,  the  darknes  is 
exceedingly  increased,  faith  weakened,  or  at  least  straiten- 
ed as  to  its  exercise.  And  by  this  means  this  spiritual  dis- 
cerning is  sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less  obstructed 
and  darkened.  Now  if  at  such  seasons,  while  the  believer 
finds  himself  thus  out  of  order,  he  cannot  discern  this 
evidence  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  word,  no  not 
where  it  shines  clearest,  in  so  far  as  to  quiet  him,  he  has 
no  reason  to  reject  the  word,  or  question  it  for  want  of 
evidence,  but  may  be,  and  ordinarily  believers  are  exer- 
cised in  complaints  of  their  own  darkness,  as  the  cause 
of  their  not  discerning  God  in  his  word:  Vitium  est  in 
organOy  there  is  no  fault  in  the  word,  but  in  the  discern- 
ing pow  er.  The  argument,  if  it  be  urged  with  respect 
to  such  a  case  as  this,  would  prove  that  there  is  no  light 
in  the  sun. 

2.  Tlie  Lord's  people,  through  the  powder  of  corrup- 
tion, and  force  of  temptation,  are  often  negligent  and  in- 
advertent, and  do  not  apply  their  minds  nor  incline  their 
hearts  unto  the  word,  with  the  attention  necessary  to  dis- 
cern the  evidence  of  God  in  the  word ;  and  as  a  punish- 
ment of  this,  God  withdraws,  and  leaves  their  minds  un- 
de.r  the  darkness  theyare  hereby  cast  into,  and^lhen  when 

50 


594  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

God  passes  by  before,  or  on  the  right  or  left  hand,  and 
worketli  round  about  them,  they  cannot  perceive  him. 
If  we  turn  our  back  to  the  light,  or  shut  our  eyes,  or  will 
not  be  at  pains  to  remove  motes,  or  humors  that  obstruct 
our  sight,  no  wonder  we  do  not  discern  the  light.  When 
we  have  idols  in  our  hearts  and  eyes,  no  wonder  we  see 
not  God.  If  we  lay  not  aside  the  filthiness  of  our  hearts, 
we  cannot  receive  the  engrafted  wordy  that  is  able  to  save 
our  soids,  in  a  due  manner. 

3.  Although  the  whole  scriptures  come  from  God,  and 
are  his  word,  yet  every  proposition  contained  in  them,  as 
it  is  a  proposition  in  itself,  expressive  of  such  a  particular 
purpose  or  thouglt,  is  not  his  word :  for  God  somethnes 
tells  us  men's  word's,  and  the  devil's  words.  Now  though 
God  speaks  them  in  so  far  as  to  teach  us  that  they  are 
such  person's  words,  yet  the  propositions  in  themselves 
are  not  to  be  received  with  faith  ;  but  we  are  only  to  as- 
sent to  this  upon  the  authority  of  God,  that  they  said  so 
and  so ;  not  always  that  these  are  true ;  for  oftcntunes 
in  themselves  they  are  false  and  pernicious.  Now,  evi- 
dence as  to  any  more  than  the  trutli  of  God  in  the  histo- 
rical narration  of  them,  is  not  to  be  expected,  nor  are  the 
scriptures  to  be  impeached  for  want  of  it. 

4.  Although  every  divine  truth  which  God  speaks, 
has  equal  authority,  and  sufficient  evidence,  yet  every 
scripture  truth  has  not  a  beaming  evidence,  equally 
great,  clear  and  affecting.  The  scripture  is  like  the 
heaven,  another  piece  of  divine  workmanship.  It  is  full 
of  stars,  every  one  of  these  has  light  sufficient  to  answer 
its  own  particular  use  for  which '  it  was  designed,  and 
to  satisfy  the  discerning  and  attentive  beholder,  that  it 
is  light ;  but  yet  every  one  gives  not  a  light  equally 
clear,  great,  glorious,  affecting  and  powerful :  There  is 
one  glory  of  the  sun,  another  of  the  moon,  another  of  the 
stars :  and  one  star  excelleth  another  in  glory  ;  and  some- 
times the  greatest  light,  if  it  is  at  the  greatest  distance, 
like  the  fixed  stars,  affect  us  less,  and  shine  less  clear  to 
us,  than  weaker  lights,  which,  like  the  moon,  are  nearer. 
In  the  scripture  there  are  propositions  which  tell  us 
things,  which  though  tliey  are  in  their  own  place  and 
proper  circumstances,  useful  to  them,  for  w  hom  they 
are  particularly  designed,  and  to  their  proper  scppe ;  yet 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      39?J 

they  are  comparatively  of  less  importance  to  iis,  as  ac- 
quainting us  with  things  of  less  considerable  nature  and 
use  to  us,  and  which  lie  not  so  far  out  of  our  reach,  be- 
ing in  some  measure  known,  or  knowable  without  di- 
vine revelation,  though  it  was  necessary,  that  in  order 
to  their  particular  use  to  us  in  our  walk  with  God,  they 
should  be  better  secured,  and  offered  us  upon  the  faith  of 
the  divine  testimony.  Again,  there  are  other  proposi- 
tions, which  hold  forth  to  us  truths  in  then*  own  nature 
of  more  importance,  that  lie  further  out  of  our  reach, 
being  neither  known,  nor  indeed  knowable  by  us,  with- 
out divine  revelation ;  and  which  in  our  present  cases 
and  circumstances  are  more  nearly  suited  to  our  case, 
and  wherein  tlierefore  our  present  concernment  doth 
more  directly  appear  to  be  interested,  and  which  there- 
fore impress  us  with,  and  leave  in  us  effects  more  last- 
ing and  discernible.  Now  it  must  be  allowed,  that  the 
truths  of  this  last  sort  have  an  evidence  more  bright, 
great,  affecting  and  sensible,  than  those  of  the  former 
sort. 

5.  Hereon  sundry  subordinate  observations  offer  them- 
selves, which  are  of  the  greatest  importance  for  clear- 
ing the  diliiculty  under  consideration.  1.  Truths  in 
scripture,  or  propositions  acquainting  us  with  things, 
otherwise  in  some  respect  within  our  reach,  and  only 
vouched  by  God  in  order  to  the  stability  of  our  faith  in 
them,  (in  so  far  as  we  are  in  practice  obliged  to  lay 
weight  on  them)  and  to  give  us,  not  so  much  satisfaction 
as  to  their  truth  absolutely,  as  some  additional  security 
about  them ;  these  cannot  be  supposed  so  discernibly  to 
affect  our  minds,  as  truths  of  another  nature,  inasmuch 
as  this  additional  evidence  is  more  difficult  to  distinguish 
from  the  evidence  we  have  otherwise  for  them.  Besides 
that,  God  seeing  that  we  are  not  so  hard  to  be  induced 
to  a  belief  of  them,  or  so  liable  to  temptations  that  may 
shake  our  faith,  sees  it  not  meet  to,  stamp  such  bright, 
lively  and  affecting  impressions  of  himself  on  them ; 
for  it  is  unworthy  of  him  to  do  any  thing  in  vain.  2.  On 
the  other  hand,  these  propositions  which  disclose  the  se- 
cret puiposes,  or  knowledge  of  God,  and  things  hid  in 
it,  that  lie  within  the  reach  of  no  mortal,  or  perhaps  nd 


396  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

created  understanding,  Avithout  revelation,  must  make  ^ 
more  vivid  and  lively  impression  on  the  mind,  as  illumi- 
nating it  with  the  knowledge  of  things,  whereto  it  was, 
and  by  its  own  reach  forever  must  remain  a  stranger. 
3.  In  like  manner  truths,  wherein  our  eternal  salvation, 
or  present  relief  from  incumbent  trouble,  is  duectly 
concerned,  do  more  forcibly  afiect,  and  have  a  more 
powerful  influence,  than  those  which  lie  more  remote 
from  our  present  use,  of  how  gi'eat  advantage  so^ 
ever  in  their  proper  place  they  may  be.  The  moon, 
which  points  out  my  w  ay  in  the  night,  guides  me,  and 
saves  me  from  losing  myself  or  my  Avay,  at  that  time  affects 
me  more  than  the  light  of  the  sun,  which  I  have  for- 
merly seen,  but  do  not  now  behold  ;  though  the  moon 
comparatively  has  no  light,  and  borrows  that  which  it 
hath  from  the  sun.  In  like  manner,  truths  in  themselves 
of  less  importance,  and  which  derive  all  their  glory  from 
those  that  are  more  important,  yet,  when  they  suit  my 
present  case,  affects  me  more,  and  their  evidence  appears 
greater.  Every  thing  is  beautiful  in  its  season.  That 
there  is  such  a  city  as  Jerusalem,  or  that  there  w  as  such 
an  one,  the  scripture  tells  us.  Of  this  we  are  otherwise 
informed,  and  are  not  likely  to  be  tempted  as  to  its  truth ; 
this  however  is  told  us  in  the  word,  and  therefore  we  are 
to  receive  it  on  the  testimony  of  the  word ;  but  the  faith 
of  it  is  not  so  difficult,  on  accounts  mentioned ;  it  is  not 
told  but  with  respect  to  some  particular  scope,  and  we 
have  otily  an  additional  security  about  it.  Hereon  our 
minds  are  not  so  illuminated,  influenced,  and  aff'ected 
with  the  discovery,  as  when  God  tells  us,  he  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  hiinself.  The  discoveiy 
of  this  fills  us  with  a  sense  of  the  glory  of  God,  hitherto 
unknown,  and  that  lay  far  out  of  the  reach  of  vulgar 
eyes,  or  any  mortal  to  discover,  without  divine  revela- 
tion. And  therefore  the  discovery  aftfects  the  more. 
Again,  I  am  perplexed  about  through-bearing  in  some 
particular  strait ;  a  promise  of  grace  to  help  in  it,  though 
it  is  of  less  importance  than  the  forementioned  discove- 
ry of  reconciliation,  and  has  no  efficacy,  light  or  glory, 
save  what  it  derives  from  the  former,  yet  coming  in  the 
sea?<on  wherein  I  am  ^vholly  exercised  about  it,  and  the 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      397 

case  whereto  it  relates,  it  affects  me  more.  4.  Where 
the  same  truth  is  at  the  same  time  discovered  by  ditl'er- 
ent  lights,  it  is  not  easy  for  persons,  if  not  very  discern- 
ing and  attentive,  to  understand  the  distinct  and  parti- 
cular influence  of  the  several  liglits ;  such  as  that  of  na-^ 
tural  light,  human  testimony,  and  revelation  ;  and  yet 
each  of  them  have  their  own  particular  use,  which  up- 
on its  extinction  would  appear  by  the  defect  we  would 
feel. 

6.  With  respect  to  truths  of  high  impoiiance,  other- 
wise unknown,  which  affect  our  minds  witli  the  enrich- 
ing light  of  things,  by  us  formerly  not  known  or  know- 
able,  and  which  by  ttieir  suitableness  to  present  circum- 
stances, or  exercise,  do  more  strongly  afiect  with  a  sense 
of  the  divine  authority,  and  illuminate  the  mind,  there 
is  no  difficulty,  save  in  the  case§  afterwards  to  be  taken 
notice  of,  or  the  like, 

7.  As  to  these  truths  and  scripture  propositions  which 
relate  to  things  not  so  remote  Irom  our  apprehensions, 
or  are  not  so  suitable  to  our  circumstances,  at  present, 
or  discover  tilings  of  less  importance  to  us,  it  is  owned, 
that  even  real  Cliristians  wlio  have  faith,  or  a  spiritual 
discerning,  for  ordinary,  are  not,  upon  liearing  or  read- 
ing them,  struck  or  afiected  with  so  sensible,  clear  and 
afiecting  evidence  of  God,  as  they  are  in  other  scrip- 
tures of  a  diflerent  nature  and  relation,  which  arises 
from  the  nature  of  the  truths  in  themselves,  the  manner 
and  design  of  God  in  the  delivery,  our  present  ciicuni^ 
stances,  the  weakness  and  imperfection  of  our  faith,  the^ 
incidental  indispositions  we  are  under,  and  other  causes 
which  may  be  easily  collected  from  what  has  been  for- 
merly hinted  in  the  preceding  observations. 

8.  All  this,  notwithstanding  the  least  considerable  of 
these  truths,  has  sufficient  evidence  of  the  divine  au- 
tliority,  that  is,  such  an  evidence  as  answers  the  design 
of  God  in  them,  and  is  able  to  determine  the  believer's 
assent,  and  oblige  him  to  obey  or  submit,  and  is  every 
way  suitable  to  the  weight  that  is  to  be  laid  on  tliem, 
with  respect  to  the  scope  they  are  mentioned  for,  and 
importance  of  the  matter ;  which  though  at  all  times  it 
js  not  equally  discernible,  for  the  reasons  abovemen?- 


398  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

tioned,  or  others  of  a  like  nature  ;  yet  in  its  proper 
season  it  is  observed  by  judicious,  observing,  and  re- 
flecting Christians.  As  for  instance,  when  any  of  these 
truths,  of  the  least  apparent  importance,  are  questioned 
by  Satan  or  men,  then  the  authority  of  God  is  felt  to 
have  that  influence  and  awe  upon  the  consciences  of  be- 
lievers, as  will  not  allow  them  to  part  with  the  hast  hoof 
or  shred  of  divine  truth,  and  Avill  make  them,  maugre 
all  opposition,  cleave  to  it,  though  it  should  cost  them 
theii'  life.  Likewise  when  the  Spirit  of  God  is  to  apply 
these  truths  to  the  particular  scope  at  which  he  aimed 
in  asserting  them  in  the  book  of  God,  then  not  only 
have  they  such  evidence  as  influences  assent  and  adhe- 
rence, but  emboldens  the  soul  to  lay  that  stress  on  them, 
which  the  case  doth  require.  ^ 

9.  Whereas  neither  our  present  imperfect  state  and 
capacities,  the  nature  of  the  things,  nor  other  circum- 
stances, allow  of  an  evidence  equally  clear  and  great  as 
in  other  truths,  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  in 
consideration  of  this,  to  prevent  the  shaking,  or  at  least 
failing  of  our  faith,  have  as  to  these  provided  many 
ways  for  our  security:  As,  1.  Though  in  the  particular 
passages,  such  evidences  shine  not  in  themselves  apart, 
yet  there  often  appears  abeaming  light,  when  they  are 
presented   in  reference  to  the  scope  intended  by  God. 
2,  Other  passages  are  joined  with  them,  placed  near 
tliem,  anfl  related  to  them,  which  have  a  further  evi- 
dence of  God,  and  though  we  cannot  discern  them  when 
they  are  looked  at  abstractly,  yet  when  we  look  to  them 
in  relation  to  these,  on  wiiich  they  hang,  and  to  which 
they  are  connected,  we  are  satisfied.    And  I  conceive 
there  may  be  an  eye  to  this,  in  dropping  doctrinal  pas- 
sages, and  inserting  them  in  scripture  history.     3.  This 
objection  principally  respects  the  Old  Testament ;  as  to 
the  divine  authority  of  which  we  are  particularly  se- 
cured by  plain  and  evident  testimonies  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.   4.  Sometimes  with  such  truths  there  are  direct 
assertions  of  the  Lord's  speaking  of  them  joined;  of  which 
there  are  many  instances  in  the  books  of  Moses,  where- 
in it  is  expressly  declared,  that  what  was  then  enjoined, 
was  by  the  particular  command  of  God.     5.  Believers 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      399^ 

for  ordinary,  being,  in  the  reading  of  the  word  of  God, 
made  sensible  ofhis  authority,  win  not  be  easily  brought 
to  admit  of  any  suspicion,  that  a  book  Avherein  God 
shews  himself  so  evidently  concerned,  and  owns,  as 
to  the  bulk,  to  be  from  him,  is  or  can  by  him  be  al- 
lowed to  be  in  other  places  filled  up  with  propositions, 
or  matters  of  a  coarser  alloy  :  And  therefore  tliey 
will  rather  question  themselves,  and  then-  own  igno- 
rance, than  impeach  the  divinity  of  the  scriptures  on 
this  account.  ,      , 

10.  Though  no  faulty  obscurity  is  chargeable  on  the 
scriptures,  (as  much  of  them  as  in  present  circumstances 
is  of  absolute  necessity  to  believers,  in  order  to  their 
acceptable  walking  with  God,  being  clearly  revealed) 
yet  there  are  many  truths  not  understood  by  all,  nor 
perhaps  by  any,  therein  inserted,  to  leave  room  for  the 
diligence,  trial  of  the  faith  of  Christians,  their  progress 
in  knowledge,  and  other  wise  ends.  Now,  till  in  the  use 
of  appointed  means,  the  Spirit  of  God  open  to  us  the 
meaning  of  these  scriptures,  we  cannot  perceive  the  light 
and  power  that  is  in  them :  but  whenever  he  opens  these 
scriptures,  that  same  light  that  discovers  the  meaning, 
will  not  fail  to  affect,  and  make  our  hearts  hum  within 

^s,  with  the  sense  of  divine  light,  authority  and  power. 
Of  this  the  experience  of  the  people  of  God,  as  th«y 
grow  in  knowledge,  furnishes  them  daily  with  new  in- 
stances, and  therefore  they  do  not  stumble  at  the  want 
of  the  present  sense  of  this  light,  but  are  cjiiickened  to 
diligence,  excited  to  frequent  cries  for  opening  of  their 
eyes^  that  they  may  understand  the  wonders,  that  by 
the  knowledge  of  other  parts  of  the  word  they  are  in- 
duced to  believe  couched  in  these  parts,  which  yet  they 
know  not. 

11.  As  has  been  more  than  insinuated,  there  are,  in 
scripture,  truths  designed  for,  and  suited  to  different 
persons,  in  different  circumstances ;  the  book  of  God 
being  designed  for  the  use  of  the  whole  church,  and  all 
in  it,  in  all  stations,  relations,  cases,  temptations  and  dif- 
ferent circumstances,  in  which  any  are,  have  been  in,  or 
may  be  in.  Now  when  God  speaks  to  one,  what  he 
says  cannot  be  so  affecting  to  aaother,  no  wise  in  the 


400  AN  ESSAY  COiNCERNING 

same  or  lilvC  case ;  though  yet  he  may  know  somewhat 
of  the  Lord's  voice  in  it.  And  the  same  is  to  be  said 
as  to  the  same  person,  with  respect  to  different  cases. 

12.  It  must  be  still  minded,  that  though  every  part  of 
scripture  has  in  its  proper  place  and  degree,  a  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  divine  authority,  yet  the  actual  discern- 
ing of  it  depends  very  much  upon  the  present  state  of 
the  discernnig  power  or  faith  of  the  Christian,  which 
discerns  it  or  not,  or  discerns  it  more  or  less  clearly,  as 
it  is  stronger  or  weaker,  more  free  from  accidental  in- 
dispositions, outward  temptations,  or  more  affected  by 
them.  And  the  same  is  to  be  said,  as  to  its  being  more 
or  less  intently  and  orderly  applied  to  the  observation  of 
the  evidence  of  God  in  the  word. 

]  3.  Yet  whereas  they,  who  are  once  renewed,  do  con- 
tinue still  children  of  the  lights  and  have  a  spiritual  ca- 
pacity of  discerning  the  Lord's  voice  from  that  of  a 
stranger^  they  do  for  ordinary,  in  the  scriptures,  find  the 
authority  of  God  evidencing  itself  suitably  to  the  par- 
ticular exigence  of  their  particular  cases,  where  the 
truths  that  occur  are  not  such  wherein  their  present  faith 
or  practice  is  immediately  affected ;  or  where  the  truths 
are  such  as  to  which,  in  their  own  abstract  nature,  no 
more  is  required  save  a  bare  assent,  they  being  only  in- 
serted with  respect  to  some  other  particular  scope,  where 
the  truths  are  not  presently  assaulted,  where  they  are 
not  immediately  called  to  hazard  much  upon  them,  or 
in  other  the  like  cases,  they  are  indeed  less  affected ; 
but  one  way  or  other,  from  one  thing  or  another,  as 
much  of  God  shines  in  them  as  is  sufficient  to  engage  to 
a  present  adherence,  and  some  becoming  reverence  as  to 
the  oracles  of  God,  which  may  in  their  season  manifest 
their  usefulness  to  us,  and  do  at  present  manifest  it  to 
others.  And  where  truths  are  of  a  different  nature  and 
importance,  and  suit  present  necessities,  and  require 
more  distinct  actings  of  faith  or  obedience,  and  we  are 
called  to  lay  more  stress  on  them ;  in  that  case  the  evi- 
dence of  God  shines  more  brigiitly.  And  scarce  ever 
will  a  discerning  and  attentive  Christian,  who  is  not 
grievously  indisposed  by  some  casual  disorder,  read  the 
scriptures,  or  any  considerable  part  of  them,  but  some 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.     401 

where  or  other,  in  the  scope  or  particular  words,  and 
propositions,  or  their  contexture,  some  light  will  shine 
in  upon  the  soul,  enforcing  a  conviction.  That  God  is  in 
it  of  a  truth. 

14*  When  the  faith  of  the  Lord's  people  is  assaulted 
as  to  the  triitli  of  the  word;  when  in  difficult  cases  and 
duties  they  are  called  to  lay  much  stress  upon  the  word, 
«nd  hazard  as  it  were  their  all ;  when  tiiey  are  distress- 
ied  with  particular  and  violent  temptations,  and  need 
comfort;  when  under  spiritual  decays,  and  God  designs^ 
to  restore  them ;  when  newly  brought  in,  and  need  to 
be  confinned  ;  when  they  are  humble  and  diligent,  and 
the  Lord  designs  to  reward  them  graciously,  and  en* 
courage  them  to  go  on  ;  when  difficulted  to  find  duty, 
and  waiting  on  the  Lord  for  light,  in  cases  of  more  than 
usual  importance;  when  the  Lord  has  a  mind  to  carry 
on  any  to  peculiar  degrees  of  holiness  and  grace,  and 
employ  them  in  special  Services ;  and,  in  a  word,  where* 
ever  any  extraordinary  exigence  requires,  then  the  Lord 
opens  his  people's  ears,  removes  what  intercepts  the  dis- 
coveries of  his  mind,  fixes  their  ear  to  hear,  and  speaks 
the  word  distinctly,  powerfully  and  sweetly  to  the  soul;, 
and  gives  them  in  and  by  it,  such  a  taste  of  his  goodness, 
wisdom,  and  power,  and  experience  of  his  authority  in 
the  word,  and  his  gracious  design  and  hand  in  its  appli- 
cation at  present,  as  fills  the  soul  with  the  riches  and/«JZ 
assurance  offaith,  peace,  joy,  and  stedfastness  in  believ- 
ing. 

Prop.  XTL  "  Whereas  there  are  different  readings  of 
'*  particular  places  in  ancient  copies,  and  places  wrong 
"  translated  in  our  versions,  it  may  be  pretended,  that 
"  wc  are,  or  may  be  imposed  upon,  and  assent  to  truths, 
"  or  rather  propositions,  not  of  a  divine  original,  casual- 
"  ly  crept  into  our  copies  of  the  original,  or  translation. 
"  In  answer  hereto,  the  foregoing  ground  of  faith  lays 
"  a  sufficient  bottom  for  the  satisfaction  of  Christians,  in 
"  so  far  as  their  case  and  particular  temptations  re- 
*  quire." 

To  clear  this  a  little,  I  shall  offer  the  ensuing  re* 
marks  :  ^l 


402  AN  ESSAY  COINCERNING 

1 .  Where  the  authority  of  God  evidences  itself  in  the 
way  above  explained,  and  confirmed  to  the  mind,  be- 
lievers have  a  stable  and  sure  foundation  for  their  faith, 
whether  they  use  translations  or  the  originals  ;  though  it 
must  be  allowed,  where  persons  are  capable  of  it,  the 
originals  are  most  satisfying.  And  this  is  plainly  the 
case,  as  all  real  Christians  from  certain  experience  know, 
as  to  all  the  truths  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  where- 
on our  faith  or  obedience  are  more  immediately  or  di- 
rectly concerned :  so  that  as  to  these  there  is  no  roc.n 
left  for  thist)bjection. 

2.  The  wisdom  of  God  has  so  carefully  provided  for 
the  security  and  stability  of  our  faith,  as  to  particular 
truths  of  any  considerable  importance,  against  pretences 
of  this,  or  alike  nature,  that  our  faith  rests  not  upon 
the  evidence  of  one  single  testimony,  but  such  truths 
upon  a  variety  of  occasions  are  often  repeated,  and  our 
faith  leans  upon  them,  not  only  as  thus  frequently  re- 
peated, but  cleared  and  confirnied  by  then-  connexion  to 
other  truths  which  infer  them,  and  to  the  whole  analogy 
of  faith,  or  current  of  the  sciiptm-es,  with  respect  to  that 
wiiich  is  the  principal  design  of  God.  So  that  we  are  in 
no  hazard  of  being  deprived  of  any  one  truth,  of  any 
considerable  influence,  in  faith  or  practice,  by  pretend- 
ed corruptions,  or  wrong  translations.  The  famous  Dr. 
Owen,  who  had  considered  the  whole  various  readings, 
and  well  knew  the  failures  of  particular  translations,  ob- 
serves, I'hat  were  all  the  various  readings,  added  to  the 
Avorst  and  most  faulty  translation,  the  church  of  God 
would  not  sustain  by  it  the  loss  of  one  important  truth. 

3.  Where  any  person  is  particularly  concerned  to  be ' 
satisfied  which  is  the  right  reading  of  any  pailicular  pas- 
sage, and  how  it  ought  to  be  translated,  they  may,  by 
tiiC  help  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  such  of  them  as 
are  particularly  fitted  with  skill  in  such  matters,  and  by 
the  endeavors  of  learned  men,  who  have  particularly 
considered  every  one  of  these  passages,  in  a  humble  de- 
pendence on  God  for  the  blessing  of  these  means,  (which 
the  wise  God  has  multiplied,  since  difficulties  of  this  sort 
began  to  create  any  trouble  to  the  faith  of  his  people) 
by  these  means  I  say,  joined  with  an  eye  to  the  Lord, 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      403 

they  may  come  to  be  particularly  satisfied.  If  any  man 
will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  the  doctrine,  whether  it  is  of 
God. 

4.  Where  there  is  not  access  to  these  means,  which 
will  not  readily  happen  to  persons  called  to  such  exer- 
cise, (which  rarely  befalls  the  ordinary  sort  of  Chris- 
tians) yet  the  Lord  can  easily  relieve  the  persons  thus 
exercised,  by  evidencing  his  authority  to  the  conscience 
in  a  satisfying  light,  or  by  enabling  him  to  wait  for  light 
until  the  solution  comes,  or  by  removing  the  temptation, 
when  it  becomes  too  strong,  or  by  leading  him  to  rest  in 
the  particular  truth,  as  secured  by  other  passages  not 
questioned,  or  by  some  such  like  pay. 

5.  The  difficulty  as  to  translations  is  really  of  less  im- 
portance ;  and  as  to  the  other  about  pretended  corrup- 
tions, ordinary  Christians,  whose  consciences  are  daily 
atfected  with  the  evidence  of  God's  authority  in  the 
word,  and  his  owning  it  as  his  w^ord,  speaking  by  it  to 
them,  and  conveying  divine  infliiences  of  light,  life  and 
comfort,  will  not  fear  or  entertain  any  suspicion  so  un- 
worthy of  God,  as  that  he  coidd  allow  the  word  he  thus 
owns,  under  a  pretence  of  his  authority,  to  impose  on 
them  assertions  of  human  extract,  and  of  any  ill  conse- 
quence to  their  faith  or  obedience. 

6.  I  shall  only  subjoin  this  one  observation,  That  ene- 
mies gain  more  by  proposing  these  pretended  corrup- 
tions in  cumido,*  and  in  such  a  bulky  way,  as  to  affright 
Christians  who  are  capable  of  such  objections,  than  by 
insisting  upon  any  particular  one,  and  attempts  to  prove 
them  of  equal  authority  with  the  reading  retained  in  tha. 
approved  originals.  Their  unsuccessfulness  in  endea* 
vors  of  this  last  sort  discovers,  that  there  is  really  nothing 
of  weight  in  that  so  much  noised  objection  about  vari* 
ous  readings  :  for  if  there  were  any  such  readings  os 
could  really  make  any  considerable  alteration,  and  were 
supported  with  any  authority  able  to  cope  with  the  re- 
ceived readings,  why  do  they  not  produce  these  I  Others 
are  of  no  consideration ;  these  only  are  to  be  regarded  : 
and  of  this  sort  there  are  but  very  few  that  the  most  im- 
pudent dare  pretend  ;  and  these  few  have  been  dis- 

'  "  In  mass," 


404  AN  ESSAY  CONCERNING 

proved  and  disallowed  by  persons  of  equal  capacity  and 
learning.  But  to  leave  this,  v\hich  is  above  the  ordina- 
ry sort  of  Christians,  the  Lord's  people,  to  whom  he  lias 
evidenced  his  own  authority,  in  the  way  above  mention- 
ed, will  be  moved  with  none  of  these  things.  They  will 
not  forego  the  word,  but  retain  it  as  their  life,  and  pay 
respect  to  it  as  the  word  of  God ;  and  they  have  good 
reason  to  do  so, 

I  shall  now  obseiTe  hence, 

1.  How  justly  divine  faith  may  be  said  to  be  infalli- 
ble, as  standing  on  an  infallible  ground,  the  faithfidness 
and  truth  of  God  in  the  word.  Througii  darkness  we 
may  sometimes  not  discern,  through  negligence  not  ob- 
serve, or  through  the  force  of  temptations  interposing 
betwixt  us  and  it,  we  may  lose  sight  of  the  evidence  of 
this  authority  ;  and  so  our  faith  may  shake  or  fail.  But 
while  it  fixes  on  this,  it  cannot  faiJ,  though  we  may  quit, 
or  by  violence  be  beat  off;  the  ground  is  firm,  and  can- 
not fail,  the  scriptures  cannot  be  broken. 

2.  Hence  it  is.  That  the  meanest  and  weakest  believ-^ 
ers,  who  know  nothing  of  the  props  others  have  to  sup^ 
port  them,  do  cleave  as  firmly  to  the  word,  run  with  all 
courage,  and  much  cheerfulness,  all  hazards  for  it,  to  the 
loss  of  whatever  is  dear  to  tliem,  life  not  excepted,  as 
the  most  judicious  divine,  and  oftentimes  they  are  much 
more  firm.  This  is  upon  no  other  grounds  accountable. 
This  reason  of  faith  is  as  much  exposed  to  them  as  to 
the  most  learned. 

3.  All  objections  arising  against  this  ground  of  faith, 
will  be  easily  solved,  if  we  consider,  1.  That  tlie  scrip- 
tures are  a  relief  provided  by  sovereign  grace,  for  those 
of  the  race  of  fallen  man,  to  whom  God  designs  mercy, 
and  so  God  was  not  obliged  to  adjust  it  in  all  respects 
to  the  natural  capacities  of  men  in  their  present  state, 
but  it  was  meet  that  the  word  should  be  so  writ,  that 
room  should  be  left  for  the  discoveries  of  the  sovereign- 
ty of  grace,  and  the  other  means  God  designed  to  make 
use  of  in  subserviency  to  the  word.  It  was  not  meet  nor 
necessary  that  all  should  be  so  proposed,  as  to  lie  open 
to  men  without  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit,  and  without 
the  ministry  of  the  Avord.  2.  Tiie  word  was  not  design- 
ed alone  to  conduct  us^  but  God  has  given  the  Spirit  wUh 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.      405 

the  word,  who  teaches  us  in  and  by  it,  as  he  sees  meet, 
3.  The  word  is  designed  to  be  a  rule  to  all  ages,  and 
therefore  it  was  not  meet  or  necessary,  that  what  con- 
cerns persons  in  one  age  should  be  equally  exposed  in 
its  meaning  unto  other  persons,  who  lived  in  different 
times.  It  is  sufficient,  that  in  every  age,  what  concerns 
that  time  lies  so  open,  that  in  the  use  of  the  means  of 
God's  appointment,  men  may  reach  that  wherein  they 
arc  concerned.  4.  The  word  was  designed  for  persons  of 
different  stations,  capacities  and  cases,  who  ought  to  rest 
satisfied  in  the  obvious  discoveries  of  what  concerns 
them,  in  theii'  own  particular  circumstances,  and  is  re- 
quired to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  more  particularly  in 
a  way  of  duty,  of  them,  though  they  cannot  see  so  clear- 
ly what  belongs  to  others  in  different  circumstances. 
5.  God  has  not  systematically  and  separately  discoursed 
all  particular  cases  under  distinct  heads  ;  but  to  leave 
room  for  the  conduct  of  the  Spirit,  for  exciting  the  dili- 
gence of  Christians  to  study  the  whole  scriptures,  and 
for  other  reasons  obvious  to  infinite  wisdom,  he  has  di- 
gested them  in  a  method,  more  congruous  to  these  wise 
ends.  6.  The  Lord  designing  the  exercise  of  tiie  faith  of 
his  own,  and  to  humble  them,  and  to  drive  them  to  a  de- 
pendence on  himself,  and  to  punish  the  wicked,  and  give 
them  who  will  stinnble  at  the  ways  of  God  somewhat  to 
break  theii'  neck  on,  he  has  digested  tliem  so,  as  that 
there  may  be  occasions,  though  always  v/ithout  fault  on 
God's  part,  for  all  those  ends :  Wisdom  will  be  justified 
of  her  children,  and  to  some  he  speaks  in  parables,  that 
seeing  they  may  not  see. 


^i*wff^i$*^^^^3f^ 


INDEX, 


OF    THE 


Authors  and  Books  quoted  in  the  preceding  Worh 


AlKENHEAD's  Speech. 

Alcoran. 

Amyrauld  de  Religionibus. 

Aristotle's  Ethicks. 

August,  de  Civitate  Dei. 

Bayle's  great  Hist,  and  Crit. 

Diction. 
Baxter's  Animad.  on  Herbert. 

De  Veritate. 

Reasons  for  Christian 

Religion. 

More      Reasons     for 

Christian  Religion. 
Becconsalon  the  Law  of  Nature. 
Blount's  Oracles  of  Reason. 

Religio  Laici. 

Boyle's  Excellency  of  Theolo- 
gy beyond  Nat.  Philosophy. 

Burnet  on  the  Thirty-Nine  Ar- 
ticles. 

Caesar  de  Bello  Gallico. 
Cicero's  Tusculan  Questions. 

De  Natura  Deorum. 

De  Ligibus. 

De  Amicitia. 

Clarkson's  practical  Divinity  of 

the  Papists. 
Claudian. 
Clemcntis  Alexandrinae  Stro- 

mata. 
Clerc's  (Le)  Parrhasiana. 

Comput.  Histor. 

Collin's  Discourses  de  Aniraa- 

bus  Paganorum. 


Dacier's  Plato. 
Deist's  Manuel. 
Discourses  on   Moral  Virtue, 
and  its  Difference  from  Grace." 
Dryden's  Hind  and  Panthef. 

Epictetus. 

Ferguson's  Enquiry  Into  Mora} 
Virtue. 

Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles. 
Growth  of  Deism. 

Heid.  (Abrah.)  de  Origin  IJr- 
roris. 

Herbert  de  Veritate. 

■  De  Relig.  Gent. 

Religio  Laici. 

Hornbeck  de  Conversione  Geri- 
tiHum. 

Hieroclis  Carmina  Aurea. 

Hobb's  Leviathan. 

Howe's  Living  Temple. 

Humphrey's    Peaceable    Dis- 
quisitions. 

Jamblichus  de  Vita  Pythag. 
Jesuit's  Morals. 

Laertius  (Diog.)  de  Vitis  Phi- 

losophorum. 
Letter  to  the  Deists. 
Limborch's   Conference    with 

Orelius  the  Jew. 
Locke  00  Human  Understand. 


40B 


INDEX. 


Locke's  Reasonableness  of 
Christianity. 

Maximus  Tyrius* 

Nicol's    Conference    with     a 

Theist 
Nye  (Stephen)  on  Natural  and 

Revealed  Religion. 

Ovid,  de  Ponto. 
— — —  Metamorph. 
Owen  on  the  Sabbatli. 

' Theologum. 

— —  on  the  Hebrews. 

De  Justitia  Vindicat. 

Outramus  de  Sacrificiis. 

Parker's  (Sam.)  Defence  of 
Ecclesiastical  Polity. 

Prudentius  (Aurelius.) 

PuffendorfF's  Introduction  to 
the  History  of  Europe. 


Reflections  oti   the  growth  of 

Deism. 
Remonstrant.  Apologia. 
Rivet  on  Hosea. 
Rushworth's  Hist.  Collections; 

Seneca's  Epist. 
— — —    De  Ira. 

De  Providentia* 

Simplicius  in  Epictetuna. 
Spinoza's  Ethicks. 
Stanley's  Lives. 
Stillingfleet's  Origines   Sacra; 

Tuckney's  (Anth.)  sermons* 
Turretine. 

Wilson's  Scripturelnterpretef;- 
Wolseley's  (Sir  Charles)  Scrip* 

ture  Belief. 
Videllii  Arcana  Arminianismi'. 

a=id  bis  Rejoinder. 
Videliua  Raphsodus. 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


Ai 


A. 


.LLEN,  Moses 
Adams,  Peter 
Adams,  William 
Allen,  David 
Annan,  Theodorus 
Adriance,  Rem 
Adriance,  Isaac  R. 
Adriance,  Abm.  R. 
Adriance,  Jacob  T. 
Adriance,  Theodorus 
Adams,  Hiram 
Angevine,  Caleb 
Angevine,  Stephen 
Adriance,  Parret 
Angevine,  Eli 
Adriance,  Chas.  P. 
Adri'ince,  Abm. 
Andriis,  Luther 
Anderson,  Alexr. 
Alexander,  Rev.  Caleb 
Adams,  Jane 
Ackerman,  John 


B. 

Bernard,  J. 
Boardman,  William 
Bradt,  Albert 
Boyd,  Peter 
Bentley,  Randall 
Bradford,  Rev.  John  M. 
Bronk,  Robt. 
Beekman,  Hannah 
Beatty,  William 
Burrows,  Jabez 


Bennet,  G.  B. 
Boyd,  James 
Blatchford,  D.  D.  Samuel 
Bloodgood,  Lynott 
Brown,  S.  R. 
Blanchard,  William 
Bogardus,  Cornelius 
Bogardus,  Cornelius  jun. 
Bogardus,  William  R. 
Browneli,  T.  C. 
Bullock,  Matthew 
Brice,  Robert 
Baker,  John 
Brown  John 
Buel,  Jesse 

BrinckerhofF  Derick  A. 
Brush,  A.  M. 
Brinckerhoff,  George 
Berry,  Nathl. 
Bogart,  David  R. 
Brill,  John 
Burr,  Oliver 
Beers,  Andrew 
Brintnal,  Wm. 
Bristoll,  Moses 
Barker,  Joseph 
Burr,  Nathan 
Bockee,  Abm. 
Bilker,  Thomas 
Baker,  Samuel  . 
Booth,  George 
Booth,  Richd. 
Brooke,  John 
Brown,  David 
Bell,  William 
Bloom,  Mary 
Barnes,  Daniel  H. 
Bonner,  Hendrick 


410 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


Briggs,  Mrs.  Nancy 
Bailey,  Esq.  Theodorus 
Buchanan,  James 
Bruen,  Mathias 
Barker,  Joshua 
Br-il,  Jacob 
Bacon,  Esq.  John 
Bissell,  Josiah 
Beckworth,  George 
Borlv,  Rev.  Christian 
Brown,  Lewis  E. 


Clinton,  Hon.  De  Witt 
Cuyler,  John  C. 
Carmichael,  Daniel 
Cameron,  James 
Clark,  John ' 
Carson,  Thomas 
Chester,  John 
Cramer,  Barnerd 
Conkling,  jun.  Daniel 
Coughtre,  William 
Clifton  Park  Library 
Cooley,  Jonathan 
Crane,  Rev.  Daniel 
Cook,  Joseph  P. 
Cuyler,  Rev.  Corns.  C. 
Carman,  Baltus  and  Thomas 
Carpenter,  David 
Cary,  Edward 
Clark,  Rev.  John 
Carpenter,  Caleb  J. 
Cox,  jun.  John 
Cuyler,  Mrs.  G.  W. 
Cantine,  jun.  Peter 
Campbell,  John 
Couenhoveu,  Christian 
Clark,  Levi 
Clark,  David 
Church,  Giles 


D. 

Doige,  Thomas 
Daniels,  James 
Dunbar,  jun.  Robert 
De  Witt,  Simeon 
Dox,  Peter  P. 
Donnelly,  Thos. 
Dole,  Geo. 
Dunn,  Christopher 
Doig,  Peter 
De  Puy,  Jacobus 
Dickson,  William 
De  Witt,  Abraham 
Doughty,  Jacob 
D wight,  Prest.   Yale   College, 
[Rev.  Timothy 
Deforest,  Lockwood 
Dunham,  James 
Darrow,  John  P. 
Dubois,  Koert 

De  Reemer,  Samuel  2  copies. 
D'ljamater,  Anlhy. 
Deimburg,  John 
Dubois,  Matthew 
Dreyer  Rev.  John  Henry 


E. 

Erwin,  John 
Ely,  John 
Epps,  Jolm 
Everest,  He  ran  M. 
Erwin,  John 
Earll,  Sylvester 
Everett,  John 
Ely,  Samuel  M. 
Elmendorph,  Cornelius  J 
Ely,  Aaron 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES 


411 


F. 

Fryer,  Wm. 
Forman,  Abraham 
Fox,  Isaac  B. 
Frisbie,  John 
Fuller,  Aaron 
Fuller,  Gershom 
Eraser,  Andrew 
Fitch,  Josiah  H. 
Flagler,  Maria  A. 
Foster,  John 
FuUerton,  Andw. 
Fairley,  Hu^h 
Filch,  Rev.  Ebenezer 
Fosdick,  Lodowick 
Furman,  Rich'd. 
Frederick,  John  H. 


G. 

Gibbons,  James 

Groesbeck  &  Brothers,  C.  W. 

Grant,  Alexander 

Guiteau,jun.  Francis 

Gates,  Gerrit 

Goodman,  Simon 

Guest,  jun.  Henry 

Gansevoort,  C. 

Garnsey,  David 

GrifSn,  Catherine 

Griffin,  William 

Geldersleeve,  Solomon 

Green  Nathl.  C 

Gary,  John 

Graham,  Adam 

Germond,  William 

Gay,  John  B. 

Gelston,  David 

Garkin,  Wm. 

Gardner,  James 


H. 

Hansen,  Issac 
Hutton,  Isaac 
Harbeck,  Anna 
Humphrey,  John 
Hinckley,  Gershom 
Hand,  Aaron 
Hand,  Nathan 
Hinckley,  J. 
Heacox,  Warren 
Halsey,  jun.  Luther 
HoUiday,  Rev.  Thomas 
Holmes,  Sheubel 
Humphries,  Joseph 
Holkins,  Abel  D. 
Hasbrouck,  Stephen 
H  uniting,  Ed. 
Hoag,  Philip 
Halsey,  D.  Abm. 
Homan,  Joel 
Hull,  Henry 
Hulst,  Henry 
Hayt,  John 
Hillhouse,  William 
Holchkiss,  Hezekiah 
Hotchkiss,  Eli 
Harrison,  Frederick 
Harris,  Joseph 
Hebard,  Daniel 
Hoffman,  Robert 
Holmes,  William 
Horgan,  Laurence 
Hervey,  Ralph 
Holmes,  Joseph 
Husted,  Thaddeus 
Hart,  William 
Hard,  Peter  N. 
Hoffinan,  Zachariah 
Hofford,  David 
Henry,  John  S. 
Haight,  Mary  C. 
Hamilton,  Rev.  T. 
Holbrook,  Amos, 
Henry  Sam'l.  M.  D. 
Hunn,  John, 


412 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


I. 

James,  Wm. 
Johnston,  Rev.  John 
Jackson,  Jos.  J. 
Jocelin,  Simeon 
Ives,  Eli 
Jackson,  Daniel 
Jenkinson,  William 


K. 

Kent,  Chief  Justice  James 
Kane,  James, 

Kitteridge,  Doct.  Joseph  D. 
Kirby,  John 
Kimilyea,  Simmons 
Keys,  Rev.  Jno. 


L. 

Lansing,  Sanders 
Lansing,  H. 
Lansing,  A.  G. 
Linklean,  J. 
Lansing,  Cornelius 
Ladd,  James 
Lucas,  Isaac 
Lawrence,  Thomas 
Latham,  Thomas  W. 
Lawrence,  Richard 
Lawrence,  George 
Livingston,  Miss  Cornelia 
Livingston,  Robert  R. 
Livingston,  Edward  P. 
Lochead,  Robert 
Logan,  George 


Laight,  Edward  W. 
Lyon,  David  S. 
Lescalier  Baron. 


M. 

McClelland,  Robert, 
Mclntyre,  Comptroller,  Archi- 
[bald. 
Marvin,  W.  J.  and  A. 
McConnell,  Jas. 
McJimsey,  Rev.  John 
McDonald,  D. 
McMillan,  John 
Mcintosh,  William 
McMurry,  David 
Maullin,  James 
Mounsey,  Thos. 
Monteath,  Rev.  Alexander 
McAuley,  Thomas 
McCartee,  Sarah  2  copies, 
McCulloch,  Charles 
Murphy,  John 
McKoy,  Robert 
McMillan,  Alexander 
Merkle,  Frederick 
Moak,  Joseph 
McCowen,  Alexander 
Miller,  Christian 
Morrell,  John  W. 
Miller,  David 
Marvin,  Rev.  Saml. 
Mix,  John 
3Iunson,  Elisha 
Marriam,  James 
Minturn,  Nathl.  G. 
Mead,  Joseph 
Martin,  Jeremiah 
Mason,  Joseph 
Mott,  Jacob  E. 
McAIpin,  James 
Muckey,  Daniel 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


41S 


Mott,  Ebenezer 
McKeen,  i^evi 
McMurray,  Rev.  William 
Martin,  John 
Massuoneau,  Claudius  G. 
Moore,  George 
Monilaw,  George 
McVey,  Thomas 
Mulligan,  Wm.  C. 
M'Masters,  Patrick 
M'lntosh,  Allan 


N. 

Newman,  Charles 

Neill,  Rev.  WiUiam 

Nott,  Prest.  U.  Col.  Eliphalet 

Niles,  Samuel 

Nelson,  Joseph 

Nitchie,  Esq.  John 

Nielson,  W. 

Nicholson,  J.  W. 


0. 

Oothout,  Abraham 
Oliphant,  John 
Ostrom,  John  D. 
Osgood,  S. 


P. 

Pearson,  George 
Parker,  Philip  S. 
Perry,  John 
Patterson,  John 
Post,  Jacob 


Patterson,  Matthew- 
Price,  Edmund 
Peck,  Nathan 
Park,  Mary 
Plummer,  William 
Philips  &  Howard 
Pardee,  Stephen 
Patchin,  John  W. 
Post,  jun.  Henry 
Petrey,  George 
Pardee,  Rev.  Amos 
Perrine,  Rev.  M.  Lak 
Preston,  John 
Peters,  Henry 


a. 

Quackenbush,  Nicholas 


R. 

Randel,  Rebecca 
Riley,  James  V.  S. 
Ramsey,  John 
Ross,  Wm. 
Roosa,  Cornelius 
Rapalje,  Richard 
Reed,  Rev.  John 
Reynolds,  James 
Radcliff,  William 
Radcliff,  jun.  William 
Raynor,  Olivia 


s. 

Sharpe,  George 
Steele,  jun.  Elijah 
Stafford,  Spencer 
Stafford,  John 
Smith  &  Walker 
Smith,  Stoddard 
Smith,  Nathl. 
Say  re,  Simeon 


414 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


Spafford,  Horatio  Gates 

Starkweather,  Avery 

Staples,  Abram 

Stillwell,  William 

Schermerhorn,  Cors. 

Skinner,  Jared 

Sillimon,  Ebenezer  H. 

Sanders,  John  [mew 

Schermerhorn,  Jun.  Bartholo- 

Stliuyler,  John  S. 

Skinner,  William 

Swartwart,  Jacobus 

Smith,  James 

Stockholm,  Phebe 

Shear,  Elizabeth 

Storm,  Thomas  G. 

Storm,  John 

Storm,  Thomas  J. 

Storm,  Ida 

Sherman,  Ebenezer 

Stoughtenbiirgh,  Andrew 

SlUiman,  Benj. 

Starr,  I.  H. 

Sprulll,  George  E. 

Social  Library  Co. 

Storm  &  Wilson 

Spencer,  Sally  A. 

Swartwout,  John  B. 

Sice,  Samuel 

Smith,  John  D. 

Smith,  Obed. 

Smith,  William 

Shultzs,  Jacob 

Shop,  Henry 

Schenck,  Peter  H. 

Scott,  James 

St.  Leger,  William 

Stoutenburgli,  John 

Smith,  Wm. 

Sanders,  Ignatius  S. 

Sturgcs,  George 


Tompkins,  Gov.  N.  York,  His 
[Excellency  Daniel  D. 


Thomas,  Treas'r.  N.  Y.  David 

Teller,  Isaac 

Trotter,  Gen.  Matthew 

Thompson,  Thomas 

Tayler,  Hon.  John 

Taylor,  Robert 

Titsworth,  John 

Tappen  Elizabeth 

Travis,  Letty 

Travis,  Isaac 

Tappen,  Christ. 

Towns,  John 

Towner,  William 

Torry,  William 


V. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Gen.  Stephen 
Van  Rensselaer,  Wm.  P. 
Van  Rensselaer,  K.  K. 
Van  Kleeck,  L.  L. 
Van  Loon,  Peter 
Vedder,  Alexander 
Y'isscher,  S. 
Ver  Velin,  Isaac 
Veeder,  Simon 
Van  Vranken,  Maus 
Vrooman,  John  S. 
Veeder,  Gerrit  S. 
Van  Rensselaer,  Mayor  of  Al- 
[bany,  Hon.  Philip  S. 
Van  Wie,  Frederick 
Van  Volkenburgh,  James 
Van  Wyck,  Sarah 
Y'an  Wyck,  Rich'd.  T. 
Van  Rensselaer,  Jer. 
Vincent,  Leonard 
Van  Cott,  Joseph 
Vanderbilt,  Philip 
Van  Kleeck,  Matthew 
Van  Gaasbeck,  Thomas 
Van  IVcss,  David 
Veeder,  John  V. 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


415 


UiKlerhilK 


David  B. 


W. 

Westerlo,  Rensselaer 
Walsh,  Dudley 
Wiilet,  Edward 
Washburn  &  Knower 
W^ynkoop,  James  I. 
Woodworth,  John 
Williams,  Erastus 
Winne,  Daniel  I. 
Wetmore,  Israhiah 
Wendell,  John  T. 
Walker,  Abraham 
Walley,  Sebe 
Wands,  James  2d 
Walley,  Jacob 
Warren,  William 
Wands,  Junr.  John 
Webb,  Joseph 
Williams,  Samuel 
Walsh,  Hugh 
Whittlesby,  Matthew  B. 
Weed,  John  W. 
Wheeler,  Russell  C. 
Wildman,  Joseph 


Willey,  Sally  and  Mary,  Van 
[Wyck 
Wris^ht,  Elijah 
Wodell,  Joseph 
Weller,  Catherine 
Walton,  Henry 
Wheeler,  Gam'l. 
Whitbeck,  Miss  Ann  Maria 
Wheeler,  Esq.  Gideon 
Whiting,  Esq.  John 
Wins,  William 


Yates,  John  V.  N. 
Young,  John 
Young,  James 
Yates,  Junr.  Henry 
Yates,  Ann  C. 
Yoemans,  3Toses 


^ 


^/ivi*' 


■^i  .^ 


mam 


'.^ 


'■\ 


